Case 3327500/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr MA Raza v Select Service Partner UK Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3327500/2019
- Decision date
- 25 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau.
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr MA Raza
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Bedeau recorded that, after a preliminary hearing on 13 January 2021, an unless order was made requiring the claimant to respond to the respondent's strike-out application and provide further information about an application to amend to add disability discrimination by 4.00pm on 22 February 2021. The judge stated that the claimant and his wife were told the consequences of non-compliance and understood that the claims would be struck out.
The claimant sought a two-week extension on 17 February 2021, saying a lawyer was considering the file and was unlikely to respond by the deadline. The judge was not persuaded that a lawyer currently represented him, noting that no representative had written to the tribunal.
The respondent's representatives submitted that the extension request continued a pattern of frequent requests based on seeking legal advice, and that the case had been ongoing for over a year without progress since the last hearing. The judgment struck out the claim under rule 37.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The gov.uk listing categorises the case as including unfair dismissal; the short strike-out judgment does not separately enumerate the underlying claims. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The gov.uk listing categorises the case as including public interest disclosure; the short strike-out judgment does not separately enumerate the underlying claims. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The gov.uk listing categorises the case as including race discrimination; the short strike-out judgment does not separately enumerate the underlying claims. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The gov.uk listing categorises the case as including sex discrimination; the short strike-out judgment does not separately enumerate the underlying claims. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Redundancy | The gov.uk listing categorises the case as including redundancy; the short strike-out judgment does not separately enumerate whether this was redundancy pay or another redundancy-related complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The gov.uk listing categorises the case as including unlawful deduction from wages; the short strike-out judgment does not separately enumerate the underlying claims. |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- Unless Order
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.