Case 2200404/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Represented himself For the v Mr S.A. Khan (representing his brother and the company) PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 2200404/2024
- Decision date
- 22 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Represented himself For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the respondents applied to strike out the claims or alternatively for deposit orders. The tribunal struck out the age discrimination claim, finding no reasonable prospect of proving that the alleged conduct involving music and workplace interactions was because of or related to the claimant's age.
The tribunal did not strike out the direct race discrimination or race harassment claims and made no deposit order. It found that the claimant had raised matters requiring evidence at a final hearing, including the shift allocation, comments about the job not being right for him, comparative mistakes by colleagues, and the respondents' later positive comments about his work.
The expenses claim for breach of contract was struck out because there was no stated contractual basis for payment of travel expenses. The claim about failure to provide written particulars of employment was allowed to continue, but the tribunal noted it was not standalone and would depend on one of the remaining claims succeeding.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claim for failure to provide a section 1 statement was not struck out and no deposit order was made; the tribunal noted it was not a standalone claim and would only lead to compensation if a remaining claim was upheld. | Other | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment struck out the age discrimination claim, including direct age discrimination and age harassment, as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The direct race discrimination claim was not struck out and no deposit order was made; it was left for the final merits hearing rather than finally adjudicated. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | The race harassment claim was not struck out and no deposit order was made; it was left for the final merits hearing rather than finally adjudicated. | Other | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | The expenses claim was struck out because the claimant did not identify a verbal or written agreement that the respondents would pay travel expenses. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- Schedule 1, rule 37(a) of the ET Rules of Procedure 2013
- Schedule 1, rule 39 of the ET Rules of Procedure 2013
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] EWCA Civ 330
- A v B and C [2010] EWCA Civ 1378
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students Union [2001] ICR 391
- Balls v Downham Market High School & College [2011] IRLR 217
- Chandhok v Tirkey [2015] IRLR 195
- Madarassy v Nomura [2007] ICR 867
- Ahir v British Airways plc [2017] EWCA Civ 1392
- Govdata Ltd v Denton [2019] ICR D8
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.