Case 2304888/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Saber v Bread Ahead Limited OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2021
- Case reference
- 2304888/2020
- Decision date
- 15 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Truscott QC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Saber
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing on 15 October 2021 before Employment Judge Truscott QC sitting alone, the tribunal considered whether the listed claims should be struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success or be made subject to a deposit order. The claimant’s automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA, based on a protected disclosure, was withdrawn and recorded as dismissed on withdrawal.
The claimant clarified that the written statement claim related to a May 2020 pay increase, that the wrongful dismissal issue depended on whether he had committed the gross misconduct relied on by the respondent, that the holiday pay claim covered six weeks in total, and that the unlawful deduction claim concerned an unpaid pay increase said to be £833.33. The tribunal noted that the papers were not especially helpful, but that the clarified claims were sufficiently identified and quantified to be capable of proceeding.
Applying the strike-out and deposit-order principles it had set out, the tribunal held that the claimant’s details were enough to potentially establish the remaining claims and that they should go forward to a merits hearing. It made no definitive decision on time bar and no deposit order was made; case management orders were issued separately.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA in relation to a protected disclosure; the tribunal recorded it as dismissed on withdrawal at the preliminary hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Claim for a written statement of particulars, said to relate to a May 2020 pay increase; the tribunal refused to strike it out or make a deposit order and directed that it proceed to a merits hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim turned on whether the claimant committed the gross misconduct relied on by the respondent; the tribunal refused strike out and no deposit order was made. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for six weeks' holiday pay, pleaded as four weeks for 2019 and two weeks for 17 March 2020 to 1 April 2020; the tribunal refused strike out and no deposit order was made. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim that the claimant was not paid his May 2020 pay increase, said to amount to £833.33; the tribunal refused strike out and no deposit order was made. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Rule 37(1)(a)
- no reasonable prospect of success
- two-stage strike-out test
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College
- Romanowska v Aspirations Care Limited
- HM Prison Service v Dolby
- Tayside Public Transport Co Ltd (t/a Travel Dundee) v Reilly
- Mechkarov v Citibank N A
- Hemdan v Ishmail
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.