Case 2405834/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Islam v Pearl Forecourts Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2405834/2022
- Decision date
- 23 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Islam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 12 May 2023 before Employment Judge Phil Allen sitting alone in Manchester, the Tribunal heard the respondent's strike-out application. It struck out the claim for failure to provide a statement of terms and conditions of employment, described as a claim under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, because the Tribunal considered it had no reasonable prospect of success. The separate breach of contract claim was also struck out on the same basis.
The Tribunal refused the application to strike out the claims for discrimination and/or harassment arising from a text message from A Cotton dated 15 June 2022. Those claims were permitted to proceed to hearing. No merits findings or financial remedy were made in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim for failure to provide a statement of terms and conditions of employment under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. Struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Application to strike out the discrimination claim arising from the text message of A Cotton on 15 June 2022 was refused. The claim was allowed to proceed to hearing; this judgment did not determine the merits. | Other | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | Application to strike out the harassment claim arising from the text message of A Cotton on 15 June 2022 was refused. The claim was allowed to proceed to hearing; this judgment did not determine the merits. | Other | Religion or belief | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.