Case 2405063/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr K Sultan v Asda Stores Limited — 2023

Case reference: 2405063/2022
Decision date: 28 April 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Anderson REPRESENTATION

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr K Sultan

Respondent

Asda Stores Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend the claim to include complaints of constructive unfair dismissal and direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. The judgment records no substantive determination of those proposed complaints.

The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the complaints of direct sex discrimination because they were out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. All complaints of sex discrimination were dismissed.

Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment states that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the specified time.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Constructive dismissal	The application to amend to include complaints of constructive unfair dismissal was refused; the substantive complaint was not determined on its merits.	Other	—	—
Religion or belief discrimination	The application to amend to include complaints of direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief was refused; the substantive complaints were not determined on their merits.	Other	Religion or belief	—
Sex discrimination	The Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to consider the direct sex discrimination complaints because they were out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. All complaints of sex discrimination were dismissed.	Dismissed	Sex	—

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.