Mr AM Gai v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2025

The claimant brought a second claim against Tesco alleging post-termination race discrimination, harassment, victimisation and whistleblowing detriment. The claim was based on an alleged failure to file an ET3 response in the earlier proceedings, which the claimant said prevented fair adjudication of his earlier claims.

The tribunal found that the second claim had no reasonable prospect of success. It concluded that the claim was, in substance, an attempt to resurrect the first claim and challenge decisions made in those earlier proceedings, which should be pursued by appeal if the claimant wished to challenge them. The tribunal also found that the allegations concerned the respondent's solicitors, HMCTS administrative actions and judicial decisions, rather than conduct by Tesco within the Employment Tribunal's jurisdiction.

In the alternative, the tribunal held that the claim was scandalous or vexatious because it had no basis in law and was an attempt to resurrect the first claim against Tesco without a clear basis for Tesco's potential liability. The tribunal did not find that the manner in which the claimant had conducted the second claim was scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious. It further held, in the alternative, that the claim was brought over four and a half years after the central act relied on, that the claimant had known of the alleged error by late February 2023, and that there was no basis to extend time or treat the allegations as a continuing act.