Mr D Gasanov v Respondent — 2018

Case reference: 4104698/2018
Decision date: 24 October 2018
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge David Hoey
Venue: Glasgow

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr D Gasanov

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The case was listed for a preliminary hearing to determine continuous service, employment status and further case management. The claimant had asked to attend remotely because he was not resident in the United Kingdom, and the tribunal granted that application and took steps to arrange it. The respondent objected to remote attendance, but neither party attended when the case called at 10:00am on 22 October 2018.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Redundancy	The judgment itself refers only to 'the claims'; this claim type is inferred from the case listing context. The tribunal dismissed the claims under Rule 47 for non-attendance without determining the merits.	Dismissed	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The judgment itself refers only to 'the claims'; this claim type is inferred from the case listing context. The tribunal dismissed the claims under Rule 47 for non-attendance without determining the merits.	Dismissed	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The judgment itself refers only to 'the claims'; this claim type is inferred from the case listing context. The tribunal dismissed the claims under Rule 47 for non-attendance without determining the merits.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.