Case 6016196/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Raya Hydar Ali v Hartwood Technology Consulting Ltd and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6016196/2024
- Decision date
- 1 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emery REPRESENTATION
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Raya Hydar Ali
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in public before Employment Judge Emery on 7 March 2025. The claimant, Mr Raya Hydar Ali, appeared in person. The first respondent did not appear or be represented, and the second respondent, Mr Timothy Clark, was represented by Ms J Duane of counsel.
The Tribunal struck out all claims against the second respondent under Emplo35(2). The stated reason was that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear claims for unpaid wages or redundancy pay against an individual who was not the employer. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | All claims against the 2nd respondent were struck out under Emplo35(2) because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear claims for unpaid wages against an individual who was not the employer. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | All claims against the 2nd respondent were struck out under Emplo35(2) because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear claims for redundancy pay against an individual who was not the employer. | Struck out | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.