Case 2303835/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr L Davies, Solicitor Interpreter in the Arabic language: Ms R Abdelrahman — 2025
- Case reference
- 2303835/2022
- Decision date
- 12 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown Appearances
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied on 9 May 2023 to amend the claim to add unfair dismissal, notice pay and holiday pay after saying he had been dismissed on 10 February 2023. Applying Selkent, the tribunal refused permission because the proposed amendment was a substantial new claim, was out of time, and it was reasonably practicable to use the correct tribunal email address. The application had been sent to an address the claimant had been told not to use and was not copied to the respondents. Even if timing were assessed differently, the tribunal found the balance of hardship and injustice favoured refusal because of the long delay before the respondents learned of the application and the resulting forensic prejudice.
The tribunal then struck out all dismissal-related complaints, including unfair dismissal, notice pay, holiday pay and redundancy pay, because the claim form had been presented on 31 October 2022 when the claimant was still employed and dismissal did not occur until 10 February 2023. It also struck out the separate head described as 'Labour abuse and exploitation; bullying and hatred; long working hours and overload; other staff not attending work', holding that these were not claims in law and/or were outside the tribunal's jurisdiction, and that no Working Time Regulations particulars had been given.
All race discrimination complaints were struck out. Applying the burden-shifting authorities, the tribunal held there was no reasonable prospect of finding that the alleged detriments were because of race or nationality: the claimant could not articulate a coherent causal link beyond saying that colleagues were from different nationalities, and the tribunal considered the case to be about whistleblowing, pay and workplace disputes rather than race. The tribunal did not strike out or make deposit orders in relation to the remaining claims, including whistleblowing, victimisation, the right to be accompanied, unlawful deductions and other surviving claims, which were left for final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
11 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissal-related complaint struck out because the ET1 was presented before dismissal on 10 February 2023. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Notice pay amendment was refused under Selkent and the notice pay complaint was struck out with the other dismissal complaints. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Struck out as part of the dismissal-related complaints; the tribunal treated it as premature at ET1 stage. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out with the other dismissal-related complaints. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The 'labour abuse and exploitation; bullying and hatred; long working hours and overload; other staff not attending work' head was struck out because it was not a legal claim and/or was outside jurisdiction; no Working Time Regulations particulars were given. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | All race complaints were struck out; the tribunal found no coherent causal link between the alleged detriments and race or nationality beyond the fact that colleagues were from different nationalities. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
17 references- Selkent Bus Company v Moore
- r30 ET Rules of Procedure 2013
- s111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Prakash v Wolverhampton City Council
- Miller and Others v The Ministry of Justice
- Galilee v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Rule 38(1)(a) ET Rules of Procedure 2024
- Rule 40(1) ET Rules of Procedure 2024
- Teeside Public Transport Company Limited (T/a Travel Dundee) v Riley
- Balls v Downham Market High School & College
- s136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- London Borough of Islington v Ladele
- Zafar v Glasgow City Council
- Van Rensburg v Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames
- s10 Employment Relations Act 1999
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.