Case 8002040/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 8002040/2025 Mr H Almajdub v National Westminster Bank plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 8002040/2025
- Decision date
- 15 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge McManus Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 8002040/2025 Mr H Almajdub
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was scheduled for a remote Case Management Preliminary Hearing on 21 November 2025. The claimant did not attend, did not seek postponement, did not provide a reason for non-attendance, and had not submitted a completed Agenda form. The respondent's representative attended the scheduled hearing.
Employment Judge McManus considered that, given the claimant's absence and the lack of specification of his complaints, it was not in accordance with the overriding objective to have substantive discussion of the claim in his absence. On 27 November 2025 the Tribunal gave the claimant until 4 December 2025 to provide written reasons or request a hearing to address why the claim should not be struck out.
The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason why strike-out judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment struck out the claim under rule 38 for not being actively pursued. It did not determine the merits of the race discrimination complaint. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the claim under rule 38 for not being actively pursued. It did not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment struck out the claim under rule 38 for not being actively pursued. It did not determine the merits of the unlawful deduction from wages complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- rule 38(1)(d) 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.