Case 3322938/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend For the v Mr S Feliha (Managing Director) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3322938/2021
- Decision date
- 2 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrew Clarke
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was commenced on 18 November 2021 and alleged unfair dismissal, race discrimination and unpaid monies. The tribunal found that the claimant had only five days' service and was not qualified to bring an unfair dismissal claim. He was invited to show cause why that claim should not be struck out, did not do so, and accepted by email that he lacked qualifying service, so that claim was struck out.
The tribunal also noted that the claim form's paragraph 8.2 did not mention race discrimination, although the relevant box had been ticked. It understood the unpaid monies allegation to concern payment at £170 per day, a reduction shortly before payment, and a possible overtime element, but no overtime sum was quantified in the material before the tribunal.
The unpaid monies and race discrimination claims were struck out under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the basis that the case had not been actively pursued. The claimant failed to attend the telephone preliminary hearing listed for October 2022, did not answer when telephoned, did not comply with the later order to explain his non-attendance, did not return the requested agenda, did not confirm the language for an interpreter, and did not attend the hearing on 20 April 2023. When the tribunal clerk telephoned him on the day, he said he was in Poland but gave no explanation for his absence.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant had only five days' service and was not qualified to bring an unfair dismissal claim. He was invited to show cause, did not do so, and accepted by email that he lacked qualifying service. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment described this as a claim for unpaid monies, apparently relating to payment at £170 per day, a reduction shortly before payment, and an unquantified overtime element. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal struck out the race discrimination claim under Rule 37 for not being actively pursued. It noted that paragraph 8.2 of the claim form made no mention of race discrimination, despite the box being ticked. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.