Case 2213185/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Khan v Mr Sulh — 2023
- Case reference
- 2213185/2023
- Decision date
- 4 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shukla
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Khan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London Central by Employment Judge Shukla sitting alone at a preliminary hearing in public on 17 November 2023. The Tribunal recorded that the respondent had not proved there were no reasonable prospects of the claimant successfully establishing that the respondent was the claimant's employer. It also noted that no findings were made on the respondent's application for a deposit order.
The substantive complaints identified in the judgment were unlawful deduction of wages and breach of contract. The Tribunal found that both claims were not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to present them in time. On that basis, both claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed at preliminary hearing because the complaint was not presented within the applicable time and it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed at preliminary hearing because the claim was not presented within the applicable time and it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.