Case 1800102/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Islam Mr A Khan v DL Insurance Services Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1800102/2020
- Decision date
- 4 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Islam Mr A Khan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants applied on 18 August 2020 for reconsideration of a judgment sent to the parties on 4 August 2020. Employment Judge Lancaster refused the application because there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, noting that the respondent's strike-out and jurisdiction applications had already been fully considered at a full-day preliminary hearing.
The judge recorded that the application did not address the regulation 3(1)(a) issue which had led to Mr Khan's claim being dismissed. The application also did not substantively address the race and sex discrimination claims which had been dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.
On wages, the judge stated that the only identifiable unauthorised deduction claim arising from the preliminary hearing concerned bonus payments for doing retentions, and that this complaint was proceeding to a final hearing. The matters about changes to a slide presentation and pension deductions had been explored and did not give rise to an actual unlawful deduction from wages properly payable under the contract. The judge also declined to vary or set aside case management decisions refusing amendments to the claim.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Mr Khan's claim was dismissed in the original judgment on an issue under regulation 3(1)(a) of the Early Conciliation exemption/rules regulations. The reconsideration application did not address that issue. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The race discrimination claim was dismissed in the original judgment as having no reasonable prospect of success; reconsideration was refused. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The sex discrimination claim was dismissed in the original judgment as having no reasonable prospect of success; reconsideration was refused. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the identifiable unlawful deduction claim about retentions bonus payments was proceeding to a final hearing. Other matters concerning a slide presentation and pension deductions were found not to give rise to any actual unlawful deduction from wages properly payable under the contract. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 72
- regulation 3(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal's (Early Conciliation: Exemption and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2014
- rule 29 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.