Case 6000273/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Aysha Patel v Rakhmat Bi — 2023
- Case reference
- 6000273/2023
- Decision date
- 5 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Aysha Patel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 18 May 2023, the Tribunal gave Aysha Patel an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the complaints of unfair dismissal, unauthorised deductions from wages, and breach of contract should not be struck out. The stated reason was that those complaints had no reasonable prospect of success because the named respondent, Rakhmat Bi, was not the claimant's employer.
The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. Employment Judge Bright therefore struck out the complaints of unfair dismissal, unauthorised deductions from wages, and breach of contract under rule 37. The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claim(s) stayed listed for a preliminary hearing on 5 July 2023.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37 after the Tribunal concluded the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success because the named respondent was not the claimant's employer. The claimant did not make written representations or request a hearing in response to the strike-out warning letter dated 18 May 2023. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out under rule 37 for the same reason as the other listed complaints: no reasonable prospect of success because the named respondent was not the claimant's employer, and the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Struck out under rule 37 because the Tribunal considered the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success owing to the named respondent not being the claimant's employer. No sufficient representations were made against strike out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.