Case 2402683/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Rowbottom First v Second Respondent Syriana One Ltd Mr Khaled Al Sabbah — 2025
- Case reference
- 2402683/2024
- Decision date
- 31 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Rowbottom First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Leach, sitting alone at Manchester by CVP on 27-31 October 2025, dismissed all of the claimant's complaints against Syriana One Ltd and Mr Khaled Al Sabbah. The complaints included constructive unfair dismissal, detriment for making a protected disclosure, harassment related to sex (and race), direct sex (and race) discrimination, and a holiday pay claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The dismissal was made on the application of Rules 50 and 51 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure and the rule in Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100.
During the hearing the Tribunal identified an earlier claim (case number 2402683/2024) that the claimant had issued against the first respondent and subsequently withdrawn, resulting in a prior judgment dismissing that claim on withdrawal. The existence of this First Claim had not been disclosed during case management of the two later claims and became apparent only at the final hearing, giving rise to the jurisdiction issue that led to the present dismissal.
The Tribunal also recorded that the respondents had been in serious and inexcusable breach of case management orders, providing four short witness statements only days before the hearing and failing to engage in disclosure or to assemble an agreed bundle. The Judge described the respondents' conduct as unreasonable for the purposes of Rule 38(1)(b) but declined to strike out the response, considering a fair hearing remained possible within the listed five days.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal complaint dismissed alongside all other complaints on the application of Rules 50 and 51 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure and the rule in Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100, the Tribunal having identified during the final hearing an earlier withdrawn claim (case 2402683/2024) covering the same subject matter. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The claimant resigned on 16 April 2024 asserting constructive dismissal. Dismissed together with all other complaints under Rules 50/51 and Henderson v Henderson. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure detriment complaint against both respondents. Dismissed under Rules 50/51 and Henderson v Henderson. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex (and race) under s.26 Equality Act 2010, allegations H1-H8. Dismissed under Rules 50/51 and Henderson v Henderson. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination (s.13 Equality Act 2010), brought in the alternative to harassment. Dismissed under Rules 50/51 and Henderson v Henderson. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination and race-related harassment (claimant relied on being white/English national origin compared with male Syrian/Lebanese colleagues). Dismissed under Rules 50/51 and Henderson v Henderson. |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Rules 50 and 51 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100
- Rule 38(1)(b) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Working Time Regulations 1998
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.