Case 6019915/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Mahim v HW Healthcare Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019915/2024
- Decision date
- 1 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harrington REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Mahim
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was listed for 10am on 1 December 2025, with notice of the date and time given to the parties in tribunal letters dated 29 November 2024 and 7 February 2025. Neither party attended at 10am, and the tribunal clerk was unable to contact the Claimant despite repeated telephone attempts.
The tribunal waited until 10.20am and, having received no communication explaining non-attendance, drafted a judgment dismissing the claims. The Claimant joined the video link at 10.40am, said he was at work and joining during a break, but left before the Employment Judge could join.
Employment Judge Harrington reconsidered the decision to dismiss the claims but remained satisfied, including by reference to the overriding objective in Rule 3 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, that the claims should be dismissed because the Claimant had not attended promptly or notified the tribunal of any difficulty attending.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment dismisses the Claimant's claims pursuant to Rule 47 after non-attendance; it does not address the merits of this claim separately. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment dismisses the Claimant's claims pursuant to Rule 47 after non-attendance; it does not address the merits of this claim separately. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment dismisses the Claimant's claims pursuant to Rule 47 after non-attendance; it does not address the merits of this claim separately. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment dismisses the Claimant's claims pursuant to Rule 47 after non-attendance; it does not address the merits of this claim separately. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment dismisses the Claimant's claims pursuant to Rule 47 after non-attendance; it does not address the merits of this claim separately. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment dismisses the Claimant's claims pursuant to Rule 47 after non-attendance; it does not address the merits of this claim separately. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 3 of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 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.