Claimant v B Singh and others — 2023

This was a preliminary hearing rather than a final merits judgment. The claimant, Mr Harjit Singh, said his claims arose from his engagement as a Sikh priest at the Bristol Sikh Temple between September/October 2021 and March 2022. The reasons record that the primary claims were for unlawful deduction from wages, including alleged non-payment of the national minimum wage and holiday pay, and that there was also a claim for unpaid notice pay. The respondents said he was neither an employee nor a worker, but a genuinely self-employed contractor.

The respondents applied to strike out the claim on the basis that the conduct of the claimant's representative was scandalous within r37(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal Rules. The tribunal said the threshold for strike out had been crossed, but it did not exercise its discretion to strike out because a fair trial was still possible. The judgment records that written reasons would follow if sought.

The claimant applied to strike out the response, relying on two previous cases in which he said a Sikh priest at the Bristol Sikh Temple had been held to be a worker, including case 1401010/21. The tribunal said that earlier decision was of persuasive authority only. It held that, until findings of fact were made in this case, it could not determine whether the cases were factually distinguishable, and it was not possible or proportionate to strike out the response on that basis.

No deposit order was made. The parties were directed towards a final hearing, and the tribunal noted that the factual issues relevant to employment status would essentially resolve the factual issues in the case. The judgment does not determine the substantive status, wage, holiday pay, or notice pay claims.