Case 6016576/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Khatri v Amazon UK Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6016576/2024
- Decision date
- 21 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Khatri
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal had written to the claimant warning that it was considering striking out the claim because it appeared that the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 21 March 2025 and that the claim had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not reply to the warning letter or request a hearing. Employment Judge Adkinson was satisfied that the grounds for striking out under Rule 38 applied and that strike out was in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The claim was struck out and the listed January 2027 hearing was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The short strike-out judgment does not set out the pleaded allegations, but the listing category identifies disability discrimination. The claim was struck out under Rule 38. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The short strike-out judgment does not set out the pleaded allegations, but the listing category identifies unfair dismissal. The claim was struck out under Rule 38. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The short strike-out judgment does not set out the pleaded allegations, but the listing category identifies unlawful deduction from wages. The claim was struck out under Rule 38. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- overriding objective in Rule 3
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.