Case 6002667/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Bilal Mohammed v AD&SB Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002667/2025
- Decision date
- 2 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Bilal Mohammed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNeither the Claimant nor the Respondent attended the hearing at Cambridge on 2 December 2025 and neither party was represented.
The Tribunal dismissed the Claimant's claim against the Respondent pursuant to rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the relevant time limit.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The gov.uk listing categorised the case as Breach of Contract. The short judgment dismisses the Claimant's claim pursuant to rule 47 but gives no written reasons or claim-specific analysis. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The gov.uk listing categorised the case as Public Interest Disclosure. The short judgment dismisses the Claimant's claim pursuant to rule 47 but gives no written reasons or claim-specific analysis. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The gov.uk listing categorised the case as Unfair Dismissal. The short judgment dismisses the Claimant's claim pursuant to rule 47 but gives no written reasons or claim-specific analysis. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of The Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024
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.