Case 6006234/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Ali v Corps Security (UK) Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006234/2024
- Decision date
- 28 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baty Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Ali
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim because the claimant failed to comply with tribunal orders requiring further information and a schedule of loss. The tribunal had written on 10 January 2025 requiring immediate compliance with the overdue orders, but the claimant did not comply.
On 17 January 2025, the tribunal notified the claimant that under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 it could strike out all or part of a claim for non-compliance with an order or where a claim was not being actively pursued. The claimant was given until 31 January 2025 to make representations as to why the claim should not be struck out, with notice that failure to respond could lead to strike out.
The claimant did not respond. The tribunal found that the claimant remained in breach of the tribunal orders, was not actively pursuing the claim, that there was no good reason before it for the non-compliance, and that the prejudice to the respondent in the claim continuing was considerable. The final hearing listed for 1 to 8 October 2025 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that 'the claim' was struck out for non-compliance with tribunal orders and failure actively to pursue the claim, but it does not separately identify individual causes of action. Claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that 'the claim' was struck out for non-compliance with tribunal orders and failure actively to pursue the claim, but it does not separately identify individual causes of action. Claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that 'the claim' was struck out for non-compliance with tribunal orders and failure actively to pursue the claim, but it does not separately identify individual causes of action. Claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal 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.