Case 1400729/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Taheri v Thoranmart Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400729/2019
- Decision date
- 22 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Taheri
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThese proceedings comprised two complaints presented in March and December 2019 and later combined. They had not yet been heard when the tribunal considered them in November 2022. On 25 February 2022 the Employment Appeal Tribunal made a Restriction of Proceedings Order requiring the claimant not to continue any proceedings brought before that order without EAT permission.
The claimant was told on 3 March 2022 that the cases were stayed so he could apply for permission to continue. On 6 October 2022 the EAT refused permission and confirmed that the claimant could not continue the claims. After warning the parties on 17 October 2022 that strike out was proposed, and considering the claimant's objection that the EAT decision was wrong and incompatible with article 6 ECHR, Regional Employment Judge Franey held that the EAT order was binding. The tribunal therefore struck the case out under rule 37(1)(a) because it could not be pursued any further and had no prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment refers to two combined complaints (case nos. 1400729/2019 and 1406391/2019). It does not identify the underlying substantive claim type before strike out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
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.