Case 2408676/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K D Raza v Triguard Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2408676/2022
- Decision date
- 11 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K D Raza
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented his claim on 1 November 2022. The judgment records complaints of race discrimination, unlawful deductions from pay, holiday pay and disability discrimination. Those claims were later dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant by judgment sent on 11 June 2024, after he said he wished to pursue matters in another forum.
This judgment concerned the respondent’s application for a preparation time order under Rules 75, 76, 79 and 84 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. The respondent said the claimant had acted vexatiously and unreasonably by delaying the case, failing to comply with directions, and not producing a statement or bundle. The tribunal reviewed the authorities it was referred to, including Gee v Shell UK Limited, McPherson v BNP Paribas, Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Yerrakalva, AQ Ltd v Holden, ET Marler Ltd v Robertson, Attorney General v Barker and Dyer v Secretary of State for Employment.
The tribunal held that the claimant’s bringing of the proceedings was not shown to be vexatious or unreasonable. It accepted that his particulars identified allegations it was not unreasonable to pursue at least initially, that he was a litigant in person, and that he felt aggrieved about the treatment he said he received. However, it found his conduct of the proceedings as a whole was unreasonable: he failed to comply with orders to cooperate on a bundle and witness statements, did not engage properly with the respondent, and only sought a postponement five days before the relisted hearing while his position on withdrawal remained unclear.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had health problems and personal pressures, but found those did not fully explain the lack of engagement. It also took into account the respondent’s unrepresented status, the time spent preparing the case, and the claimant’s limited but incompletely disclosed means. Applying an hourly rate of £25 to 8.5 hours, the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay the respondent £212.50 by way of a preparation time order.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Claim form and particulars alleged race discrimination; the claims were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant on 31 May 2024. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim form and particulars alleged unlawful deductions from pay; the claims were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant on 31 May 2024. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim form and particulars alleged holiday pay; the claims were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant on 31 May 2024. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claimant said a disability discrimination complaint should be included, based on a dust allergy / hidradenitis suppurativa; the claims were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant on 31 May 2024. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £213
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
9 references- Rule 76(1) three-stage test
- Rule 84 ability to pay
- Gee v Shell UK Limited
- McPherson v BNP Paribas (London Branch)
- Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Yerrakalva
- AQ Ltd v Holden
- ET Marler Ltd v Robertson
- Attorney General v Barker
- Dyer v Secretary of State for Employment
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.