Case 1800835/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Z Y Sougui v Advanced Supply Chain Group Ltd and 5 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 1800835/2023
- Decision date
- 13 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge James At
Parties
7 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Sheffield by CVP, Employment Judge James At dealt with strike-out and alternative deposit applications in three consolidated claims. Two respondents had already been removed by withdrawal before the hearing. The judge applied Rule 37 and Rule 39 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, the two-stage approach in HM Prison Service v Dolby, and the usual caution about striking out discrimination claims, citing Anyanwu, Ezsias, Ahir, Kaur, Hasan, Malik, Cox and Jansen van Rensberg.
On TUPE, the tribunal found that the claimant's employment had moved from R4's Shepcote Lane site to Europa Way in March 2022, so he was not part of the organised grouping that transferred to Boohoo.com UK Limited in July 2022. It also found that employee representatives had been elected for both the July 2022 transfer and the January 2023 transfer to Advanced Supply Chain Group Ltd, and that the claimant was aware of the January consultation. The Regulation 13 claims against R4 and R5 were therefore struck out for lack of standing, and the July 2022 complaint was also held to be out of time.
On the post-transfer allegations, the tribunal struck out the grievance-appeal complaints against R4 and R1 as having no reasonable prospect of success, finding the emails and the cancellation of the appeal hearing were explained by the TUPE transfer and were not linked to disability or protected act complaints. Of the remaining allegations against R1, the February and March 2022 matters were struck out on time grounds, allegation 1.7 and the allegations in 1.10 and 1.13 were struck out on the merits, but later October to December 2022 allegations were not struck out at that stage. No monetary award was made and deposit orders were not ordered.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Regulation 13 claims against R4 and R5 were struck out. The tribunal found the claimant was not part of the organised grouping that transferred to R5 in July 2022 because his work had moved from Shepcote Lane to Europa Way in March 2022, and it found elected employee representatives existed for both the July 2022 and January 2023 transfers. The July 2022 complaint was also said to be out of time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Mixed strike-out decision only. The tribunal struck out the February and March 2022 allegations 1.1 to 1.5 on time grounds, and struck out allegation 1.7 and the allegations in 1.10 and 1.13 on the merits, but held that other October to December 2022 allegations were not suitable for strike out at this stage. | Other | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Some harassment allegations, including the post-transfer grievance appeal complaints against R4 and R1 and the harassment aspects of 1.10 and 1.13, were struck out. Other harassment allegations linked to the 2022 sickness absence and grievance issues were not struck out at this stage. | Other | — | — |
| Victimisation | Some victimisation allegations, including the post-transfer grievance appeal complaints and the victimisation aspects of 1.5, 1.10 and 1.13, were struck out. Other allegations, including parts of 1.11 and 1.12, were not struck out at this stage. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- Rule 37 strike-out (no reasonable prospect of success)
- Rule 39 deposit order (little reasonable prospect of success)
- HM Prison Service v Dolby two-stage strike-out test
- Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Ahir v British Airways plc
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust
- Hasan v Tesco Stores Ltd
- Malik v Birmingham City Council
- Cox v Adecco
- Jansen van Rensberg v Royal London Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames
- UNISON v Somerset CC
- I Lab Facilities Ltd v Metcalfe
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.