Case 8001744/2025 · Employment Tribunal
, Mr I Ashraf and Mr T Lithgow Mr A Hamilton v Not present Leo GF Ltd - Leopardo — 2026
- Case reference
- 8001744/2025
- Decision date
- 11 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Mannion
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- Mr I Ashraf, Mr T Lithgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
, Mr I Ashraf and Mr T Lithgow Mr A Hamilton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat in Glasgow on 9 March 2026 before Employment Judge E Mannion, with lay members Mr I Ashraf and Mr T Lithgow. The claimant did not attend the hearing, and the respondent was represented by Ms L Avdyli, lay representative.
The judgment states that the claims were dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 because of the claimant's non-attendance at the hearing. No merits findings are given, and the judgment does not record any remedy or monetary award.
On the information in the judgment, the claims comprised age discrimination and unfair dismissal, and both were dismissed without a substantive determination of liability.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 because the claimant did not attend the hearing on 9 March 2026. The judgment does not determine the merits of the claim. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 because the claimant did not attend the hearing on 9 March 2026. The judgment does not determine the merits of the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.