Case 6012531/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Azzizi v Bhatti Haroon HELD AT: Manchester — 2026
- Case reference
- 6012531/2025
- Decision date
- 25 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Azzizi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNeither party attended the preliminary hearing for case management. The Respondent had not submitted an ET3 and was debarred. At the judge's direction, the clerk telephoned the Claimant and was told that the Claimant would not attend.
The judge noted that the ET1 ticked whistleblowing but gave no basic particulars, and inferred from the brief information that the claim may actually be for unpaid wages. The judge considered Rule 47, alternatives to dismissal, and postponement, but concluded that no progress could be made without the Claimant's participation and dismissed all claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The ET1 ticked the whistleblowing box but did not provide basic particulars. All claims were dismissed under Rule 47 due to the Claimant's non-attendance. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judge inferred from the brief ET1 information that the matter may actually be a claim for unpaid wages. All claims were dismissed under Rule 47 due to the Claimant's non-attendance. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Cooke v Glenrose Fish Company Limited [2004] ICR 1188
- Ahmed v DWP [2025] EAT 170
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.