Case 6001871/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Karl Ahmed v Proman Recruitment Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001871/2025
- Decision date
- 6 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Povey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Karl Ahmed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal wrote to the Claimant on 22 October 2025 warning that it was considering striking out the claim under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The reasons given were that the claim appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success, that the Claimant had not complied with the Tribunal’s order dated 25 June 2025, and/or that the claim had not been actively pursued.
The letter gave the Claimant an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing. The Claimant did not reply. The Employment Judge was satisfied that the grounds for strike out under Rule 38 applied and that strike out was in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3.
The claim was therefore struck out. The judgment does not record any merits findings or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole under Rule 38. It does not identify a separate merits outcome for this claim, so the strike-out is recorded against the listed breach of contract claim from the case context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole under Rule 38. It does not identify a separate merits outcome for this claim, so the strike-out is recorded against the listed religion or belief discrimination claim from the case context. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 3 overriding objective
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.