Case 4107309/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ahmed Hassan v Chiko’s Turkish Barber Ltd (dissolved company) — 2022
- Case reference
- 4107309/2019
- Decision date
- 24 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McPherson
- Venue
- chambers in Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ahmed Hassan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Ahmed Hassan presented an ET1 on 12 June 2019 against Chiko’s Turkish Barber Ltd, initially described as Chikos Turkish Barbers. No ET response was lodged, and the case was listed for a final hearing before later being sisted pending related criminal proceedings in Glasgow Sheriff Court. On 10 February 2022 the Tribunal was told that the respondent was a dissolved company, and Companies House records showed that Chiko’s Turkish Barber Ltd had been dissolved on 19 October 2021. The claimant had not applied to have the company restored to the register.
The Tribunal gave the claimant opportunities on 26 April 2022 and again on 5 May 2022 to provide written reasons why the case should not be struck out, or to request a hearing. He did not do so. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) on the basis that it had not been actively pursued, and also referred to rule 37(1)(a) because the respondent company had been dissolved and the claim had no reasonable prospect of success / could not proceed against a non-existent company. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying substantive causes of action; it strikes out the claim as a whole. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37(1)(d)
- rule 37(1)(a)
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.