Case 1401348/2025 · Employment Tribunal
1) Mr J Sraidi 2) Mr R Khamirza v Mr Z Marstani T/A Southern Fried Chicken — 2026
- Case reference
- 1401348/2025
- Decision date
- 8 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray-Jones Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
1) Mr J Sraidi 2) Mr R Khamirza
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimants brought complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages and failure to provide paid annual leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The Tribunal found those complaints were not presented within the applicable time limit, but that it was not reasonably practicable to present them in time and they were presented within a further reasonable period. The claims will therefore proceed.
The Tribunal also considered the Respondent's counterclaim under Article 4 of the ETs Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. It found it had no jurisdiction to hear the counterclaim because neither Claimant had brought proceedings under the Order against the Respondent, and dismissed the counterclaim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal found the complaint was out of time but that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time, and that it was presented within a further reasonable period. The claim will proceed. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The complaint concerned failure to provide paid annual leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The Tribunal found the complaint was out of time but that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time, and that it was presented within a further reasonable period. The claim will proceed. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The Respondent's counterclaim under Article 4 of the ETs Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 was dismissed because neither Claimant had brought proceedings under the Order against the Respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- not reasonably practicable
- Article 4 of the ETs Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.