Blue Supply Ltd and G Uddin

Case Summary

The tribunal issued a Rule 22 judgment in the claimant's favour following the respondents' failure to respond to the claim. The tribunal determined the claimant was an employee owed £1300 in unpaid wages and had suffered harassment related to religion and race, awarding £5000 for injury to feelings. The claimant's direct discrimination claims were dismissed as subsumed by the harassment findings.

The tribunal issued a Rule 22 judgment against the respondents who failed to respond to the claim or apply for an extension of time to present an ET3 despite being informed they could do so at the preliminary hearing. The tribunal determined the claimant was an employee owed unpaid wages and had suffered harassment related to religion and race based on the evidence submitted.

• •Whether claimant was an employee
• •Unlawful deduction of wages
• •Harassment related to religion and race
• •Direct discrimination claims

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr S Ahmed Respondents: (1) Blue Supply Ltd (2) Gias Uddin Heard at: East London Hearing Centre On: 25 March 2026 Before: Regional Employment Judge B Burgher Representation For the Claimant: Did not attend For the Respondents: Mr T Dwyer (Senior Manager) JUDGMENT Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 – Rule 22 1 The final hearing listed for today was postponed due to the Claimant informing the Tribunal at 10:16am that he has COVID. The Claimant sought for the matter to continue or be postponed. 2 The Respondents did not respond to the claim, nor apply for an extension of time to present an ET3 despite being informed that this could be done at the Preliminary hearing held by EJ Whittall on 10 July 2025. 3 The First Respondent had sent the Tribunal a contract for services agreement that it had with the Claimant. The Claimant sent the Tribunal ‘evidence of abhorrent culture’ at the First Respondent which included WhatsApp messages. The Second Respondent has not engaged with the proceedings at all. 4 Having, considered this further information I concluded that it was in accordance with the overriding objective to issue a Rule 22 Judgment. 5 Pursuant to Rule 22, I determined that: 5.1 The Claimant was an employee for the purposes of section 83 Equality Act 2010 and a worker for the purposes of section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996. 5.2 The sums claimed in the ET1, amounting to £1300, in respect of unpaid wages are due to the Claimant. 5.3 The Respondents subjected the Claimant to harassment related to religion and race (colour) contrary to section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. 5.4 The Respondents are ordered to pay the Claimant £5000 in this regard. 5.5 Given the Rule 22 claim in respect of unlawful harassment, the claimant’s claims for unlawful direct discrimination are dismissed. 6 The First Responde…