Case 2306772/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Farrukh Husain v Croner Group Limited and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2306772/2023
- Decision date
- 8 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Boyle Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Farrukh Husain
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reserved judgment on cross-applications at a public preliminary hearing, not a final determination of the substantive employment claims. The claimant's pleaded claims, as clarified at an earlier case management hearing, included whistleblowing detriments, direct religion or belief discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, indirect religious discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment related to disability, unauthorised deductions from wages, and automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure.
The respondents applied to strike out the claimant's claims or, alternatively, for deposit orders. They argued that the claims had no or little reasonable prospects of success and relied on the claimant's post-dismissal conduct in sending documents relating to another employment tribunal case to the solicitor for the claimants in that case. The tribunal did not accept that a fair trial was no longer possible and stated that it was not proportionate to use the tribunal process to punish the claimant for those activities.
On the merits threshold for strike out and deposit orders, the tribunal held that none of the claimant's arguments was so implausible as to justify strike out or a deposit order, or to show that the claims had no or little reasonable prospects of success. It found that the prospects of the claims could not be determined without evidence, including disputed issues about time limits for indirect religious discrimination and causation in relation to the other claims. The respondents' application for strike out and deposit orders was refused.
The claimant also applied to strike out the respondents' response, arguing that the respondents' stated reason for dismissal was not the real reason and that they were motivated by whistleblowing, religious belief, disability, or a combination of those matters. The tribunal held that none of the respondents' defences was so implausible as to justify strike out or to show no or little reasonable prospects of success. The claimant's application was refused, and no remedy or monetary award was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Whistleblowing detriment and automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure were pleaded claims, but this preliminary judgment did not determine them on the merits; the respondents' strike-out and deposit-order applications were refused. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure was pleaded, but this preliminary judgment did not determine the claim on the merits; the respondents' strike-out and deposit-order applications were refused. | Other | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct religion or belief discrimination and indirect religious discrimination were pleaded, but this preliminary judgment did not determine them on the merits; the respondents' strike-out and deposit-order applications were refused. | Other | Religion or belief | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments were pleaded, but this preliminary judgment did not determine them on the merits; the respondents' strike-out and deposit-order applications were refused. | Other | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability was pleaded, but this preliminary judgment did not determine it on the merits; the respondents' strike-out and deposit-order applications were refused. | Other | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 2 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- Jaffrey v Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2002]
- Chandhok v Tirkey [2015]
- QDOS Consulting Ltd UKEAT/0495/11
- Ahir v British Airways [2017]
- Cox v Adecco Group UK & Ireland and ors 2021 ICR 1307
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.