Case 6008394/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Rafiq v Sunrise International Foods Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008394/2024
- Decision date
- 11 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Martin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Rafiq
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNeither party attended the hearing on 6 January 2025, and the clerk was unable to contact them. Employment Judge M Martin reviewed the file and noted that the claimant had emailed the Tribunal on 2 December 2024 suggesting that he may be withdrawing his claims, but he did not confirm that position.
The judgment records that the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and protected interest disclosure were dismissed. The reasons say that the non-attendance of both parties, without explanation, suggested that the claimant was not proceeding with his claims, and the claims were therefore dismissed.
No evidence was heard and no findings were made on the underlying merits of either complaint. The decision does not record any financial remedy, liability assessment, or separate award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed after neither party attended the hearing; the judge also noted the claimant had emailed on 2 December 2024 suggesting he may be withdrawing his claims, but had not confirmed that position. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment refers to a complaint of 'protected interest disclosure'; this has been treated as a protected disclosure/whistleblowing claim. It was dismissed for the same non-attendance and non-proceeding reasons as the unfair dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.