Mr Mohammed Suleman v City of Bradford Metropolitan City Council — 2026

At a public preliminary hearing by videolink on 22 May 2026, Employment Judge R S Drake considered the respondent's application to strike out Mr Suleman's claims. The tribunal took account of the claimant's hearing difficulties and recent stroke, heard submissions from the claimant in person and from the respondent's solicitor, and considered the pleadings and a 75-page bundle for the purpose of deciding whether the pleaded claims had a reasonable prospect of success.

The unfair dismissal claim was struck out. The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed from 16 October 2023 as a passenger transport service driver and that his employment ended on 24 July 2025 on grounds of alleged lack of capability. Because he did not have two years' qualifying service under section 108 ERA, and because the remainder of the pleaded case did not fall within sections 103-104 ERA as an automatic unfair dismissal claim, the ordinary unfair dismissal claim had no reasonable prospect of success.

The discrimination claims because of disability, age and marital status were struck out under Rule 38. The tribunal recorded that the claimant complained about the conduct of capability and grievance procedures after absence connected with bereavement leave and concerns including his stroke and notification to DVLA. The tribunal found that, despite repeated opportunities, the claimant was unable to point to any pleaded assertion that the way he was treated in those procedures was related to or because of disability, age or marital status. The tribunal also stated in its conclusions that the reasonable adjustments discrimination claim failed because disability at the relevant time was not established.

The tribunal applied Rule 38 by reference to the pleaded case, citing authorities on strike out and the need for a realistic rather than fanciful prospect of success. It concluded that this was an obvious case in which the discrimination claims could be struck out despite the general caution about striking out discrimination claims, and also found that any pleaded whistleblowing or public interest disclosure detriment claim did not go far enough to establish a viable and triable claim. Claims about alleged malicious, vexatious and false allegations and misrepresentations were also struck out for lack of Employment Tribunal jurisdiction.

The tribunal did not finally determine the unpaid wages and holiday pay claims. It accepted, on the basis of the claimant's pleaded case and the respondent's agreement as to the pleading, that there was a potentially valid claim, subject to evidence, for accrued but unpaid wages and holiday pay for five days. Those remaining claims were listed for a three-hour final hearing on 4 September 2026, and no remedy or monetary award was made in this judgment.