Case 6044068/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ashar Iqbal v Q12 PJ Limited Heard: By CVP — 2026
- Case reference
- 6044068/2025
- Decision date
- 19 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ashar Iqbal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAshar Iqbal described claims against Q12 PJ Limited for two weeks' unpaid wages, unpaid delivery money and notice-period pay following the closure of the store where he worked. The respondent had not provided a response, but the Tribunal found that Mr Iqbal had not supplied sufficient information to identify and quantify his loss after being asked to do so.
Mr Iqbal did not respond to the Tribunal's further request for the specified information, provide a witness statement or evidence as ordered, or attend or arrange representation at the hearing on 19 June 2026. A telephone call from the Tribunal clerk went unanswered, and Mr Iqbal did not respond to a voicemail within a reasonable time. Having considered the available information, the reasons for the absence, the interests of justice, the use of public resources and the overriding objective, the Tribunal dismissed the claim under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes claims for two weeks' unpaid wages and unpaid delivery money. The claim was dismissed under rule 47 because of the claimant's non-attendance, without a determination on the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes a claim for notice-period pay. The claim was dismissed under rule 47 because of the claimant's non-attendance, without a determination on the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 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.