Case 6033385/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Jalil Khasanov v Capital Maintenance Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6033385/2025
- Decision date
- 16 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Jalil Khasanov
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningJalil Khasanov brought an application for interim relief against Capital Maintenance Limited under section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The case was heard at London Central by video on 6 October 2025 before Employment Judge E Burns, with the claimant appearing in person and Wendy Miller, Counsel, for the respondent.
The tribunal held that the application for interim relief was not well founded. No further reasons are set out in the extracted text provided, and the judgment records only the dispositive finding on the application.
The claim was dismissed. The judgment does not record any monetary award or split of remedy, and no panel members are listed, indicating a judge-alone hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal decided the claimant's application for interim relief brought under section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 against Capital Maintenance Limited. It was found not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.