Case 2202574/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Farah Khan v John Lewis plc RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 2202574/2023
- Decision date
- 3 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gidney Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Farah Khan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing and applied that morning to postpone on medical grounds, without supporting medical evidence and without copying the Respondent. The tribunal refused the postponement application after the Claimant did not respond to attempts to obtain evidence by email and telephone.
The tribunal declined to extend the list of issues because the Claimant had not made the required amendment application and had not attended to pursue it. It then granted the Respondent's application to strike out specified factual allegations, some job-role allegations, harassment claims based on those allegations, and the unauthorised deduction from wages claim.
The tribunal found that the struck-out discrimination allegations were significantly out of time, were not shown to be continuing acts, and in some instances involved individuals who could not be identified or traced. It concluded that those matters had no reasonable prospect of success and that narrowing the case was appropriate case management so the parties could focus on the remaining claims.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Part of the Claimant's age discrimination allegations, including allegations concerning job roles and access to courses, was struck out at the preliminary hearing. The judgment records that some remaining claims were not struck out, so this entry is limited to the struck-out parts. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Part of the Claimant's race discrimination allegations, including allegations concerning access to courses and unidentified individuals, was struck out. The source text is truncated in the prompt, so the full list of struck-out race discrimination allegations may not be visible. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Race/religious discrimination allegations dated October to December 2020 were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The source text is truncated in the prompt, so the full details are not visible. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | The harassment claims at paragraphs 3.1 to 3.9 of the list of issues were struck out because they were based on factual allegations also struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unauthorised deduction from wages claim concerning a Christmas bonus was struck out. The tribunal recorded that the Respondent did not pay a Christmas bonus and that the Claimant was paid the 500 pound one-off cost of living support payment. | Struck out |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Rule 37(1) ET Rules 2013
- s.123 EqA 2010
- continuing acts
- just and equitable
- Aziz v FDA
- Lyfar v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust
- Barclays Bank plc v Kapur
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.