Case 1401242/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Khokhar v Walkers Snacks Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401242/2021
- Decision date
- 13 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dobbie Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Khokhar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 20 July 2023, Employment Judge Dobbie heard the respondent's strike-out and deposit application on disability-related reasonable adjustments, harassment, direct discrimination and unfair dismissal issues. The respondent argued that a number of complaints were out of time or had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant, appearing in person, was not debarred from arguing for a just and equitable extension of time, and the respondent conceded that the unfair dismissal claim was in time.
Applying Hendricks and Lyfar on continuing acts, and the rule 37/Ezsias/Balls line of strike-out authority, the tribunal refused to strike out the continuing-act arguments for the territory-change complaints, the September 2020 increase in working days, the homeworking/telephone complaint, and the flexible-working/alternative-duties complaints. It held that the first two territory-change allegations had little prospect of succeeding on the time-point argument and attached a £200 deposit to that issue, but it did not finally determine the merits of the underlying reasonable-adjustments claims.
On the harassment and direct-discrimination complaints, the tribunal held that the allegation that Haris Khan was rude and arrogant in about August 2020 was a one-off act and struck out the argument that it was in time, while leaving open just and equitable extension of time. It declined to strike out the direct disability discrimination allegation because the capability process and dismissal would need to be tested at a full hearing, and it attached a £200 deposit. Final paragraph 41 recorded deposit orders for the harassment complaints at paragraphs 12(i), 12(ii) and 12(v), and no order for paragraph 12(iv).
Claims and outcomes
10 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Reasonable adjustments allegations that the claimant's territory was changed in July 2019 and again in early spring 2020. The tribunal treated the two territory-change complaints together, refused to strike out the continuing-act argument, but held there was little prospect of showing they were in time and attached a £200 deposit to that time-point argument, leaving open a just and equitable extension of time. | Other | Disability | £200 |
| Disability discrimination | Reasonable adjustments allegation that the claimant was required to increase his working days in September 2020. The tribunal held this was capable of being an ongoing expectation/PCP and declined strike out or a deposit on the time point. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Reasonable adjustments allegation that the claimant was not allowed to avoid or reduce driving by working from home or on the telephone. The tribunal said it could be linked to the later capability process and declined strike out or a deposit on the time point. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Reasonable adjustments allegations about flexible working and a more flexible role or alternative duties. The tribunal treated paragraphs 11(d) and 11(e) together and refused strike out or a deposit on the time point, saying the complaints were not confined to the formal flexible-working request. | Other | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment allegation arising from the disciplinary process and two written warnings in the second half of 2020. The tribunal did not finally strike it out at this hearing, and final paragraph 41 recorded a deposit order for this allegation. |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Hendricks continuing act test
- Lyfar continuing act test
- Aziz continuing act factors
- rule 37 no reasonable prospect of success
- HM Prison Service v Dolby two-stage strike-out test
- Ezsias high threshold for strike out
- Bahad caution for litigants in person
- Cox v Adecco approach to LIP strike-out
- just and equitable extension of time under s.123 EqA
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.