Case 2304416/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Harmail Hothi v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2304416/2022
- Decision date
- 20 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Smith
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Harmail Hothi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant's application dated 6 March 2023 was treated as an application to strike out the respondent's Response and was determined without an oral hearing. The tribunal refused the application.
The tribunal found that any breach of tribunal orders by the respondent was not significant in the circumstances of the case as a whole and that a fair trial remained possible. It also referred to a strong public interest in the case being determined at a full hearing given the allegations made.
The tribunal accepted that the respondent had a good reason for delay, referring to recent postal strikes, the respondent's ability to deal with hard copy documentation, and the effect of the claimant's outstanding appeal on disclosure. It also found there was ample time for any breach to be rectified and that the claimant had not suffered any real prejudice.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment determined the claimant's application to strike out the respondent's response, not the substantive unfair dismissal claim. The application was refused. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.