Case 6019131/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Bilal El-Shaweesh v Graham Jones Associates Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6019131/2025
- Decision date
- 21 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Bilal El-Shaweesh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNeither Bilal El-Shaweesh nor Graham Jones Associates Limited attended the video hearing at Liverpool on 21 May 2026. The tribunal unsuccessfully attempted to contact Mr El-Shaweesh by telephone and email and noted that the respondent was a dissolved company.
Employment Judge Benson struck out all claims under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 because of the claimant's non-attendance. The judgment did not determine the merits of the individual claims and recorded no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out all claims without separately particularising the causes of action. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment struck out all claims without separately particularising the causes of action. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment struck out all claims without separately particularising the causes of action. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment struck out all claims without separately particularising the causes of action. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment struck out all claims without separately particularising the causes of action. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment struck out all claims without separately particularising the causes of action. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 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.