Case 2201710/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Qasim Quarishi v Waterstones Booksellers Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2201710/2022
- Decision date
- 5 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Qasim Quarishi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Qasim Quarishi, had already presented claim 2200450/2022 on 31 January 2022 and then applied on 4 February 2022, the day after his dismissal, to amend that claim to include unfair dismissal. That amendment was allowed. The present separate claim repeated the same factual matters and legal complaints, but added an allegation of automatically unfair dismissal for raising a protected disclosure.
The claimant accepted that he did not personally make a protected disclosure. On that basis, the tribunal found that the second claim added nothing to the first claim. It treated the presentation of the separate claim as an abuse of process and held that it met the test for strike out under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. The claim was therefore struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The separate claim was presented after claim 2200450/2022 had already been amended to include unfair dismissal. It repeated the same factual matters and legal complaints, and only added an allegation of automatically unfair dismissal for raising a protected disclosure. The claimant accepted that he did not personally make a protected disclosure, so the tribunal held that the new claim added nothing to the first claim and was an abuse of process. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- abuse of process
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.