Case 2308538/2025 · Employment Tribunal

Mr. C. S. Goh v Asda Stores Limited — 2025

Case reference: 2308538/2025
Decision date: 26 September 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Sudra JUDGMENT
Venue: London South

Indexed: 25 April 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr. C. S. Goh

Respondent

Asda Stores Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Employment Judge Sudra at London South on 26 September 2025 made a Costs Order under rule 74(2)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 against the claimant Mr C S Goh in favour of Asda Stores Limited.

The order followed the refusal of the claimant's Interim Relief application under section 128 Employment Rights Act 1996, made the same day. The Tribunal found unreasonable conduct in the claimant's pursuit of an Interim Relief application that had no reasonable prospects of success (he had not identified any alleged protected disclosures or detail of who, how, when or what was disclosed) and his failure to respond to the respondent's costs warning letter of 17 September 2025.

Applying Yerrakalva v Barnsley MBC [2012] ICR 420 and taking the claimant's means into account, the Tribunal awarded the respondent £4,992 (a portion of the £15,102 sought) representing costs incurred after 19 September 2025. The substantive (unfair dismissal/whistleblowing) claim itself was not adjudicated in this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	Interim Relief application under section 128 Employment Rights Act 1996 was refused. Costs Order under rule 74(2)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 made against the claimant in the sum of £4,992 for unreasonable conduct (cost against claimant — not recorded as remedy_amount per schema's nonneg-money constraint).	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.