Case 6003526/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Ali v SK Lloyds Solicitors Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6003526/2024
- Decision date
- 22 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Thompson
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Ali
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe matter was listed for a remote case management hearing on 22 April 2025, having been converted from a final hearing because both the claim and response were very unclear. Neither party attended the hearing.
The Tribunal made conditional unless orders. The Claimant was required to confirm an intention to proceed, provide availability for a relisted case management hearing, and give reasons if unable to attend remotely; the Respondent was required to confirm whether it intended to proceed with the employer's contract claim and provide availability. The judgment states that the relevant claim will be struck out without further order if the required confirmation is not provided.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment records that the claim and response were very unclear and makes a conditional unless order requiring the Claimant to confirm an intention to proceed, failing which the claim shall be struck out without further order. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the claim and response were very unclear and makes a conditional unless order requiring the Claimant to confirm an intention to proceed, failing which the claim shall be struck out without further order. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records that the claim and response were very unclear and makes a conditional unless order requiring the Claimant to confirm an intention to proceed, failing which the claim shall be struck out without further order. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment separately refers to an employer's contract claim and makes a conditional unless order requiring the Respondent to confirm an intention to proceed, failing which that contract claim shall be struck out without further order. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.