Case 2411093/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A M Choudhry v DL Insurance Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2411093/2018
- Decision date
- 21 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald
- Panel members
- Mr S Anslow, Ms K Fulton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A M Choudhry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned the respondent's costs application, not a final liability determination. The claimant had brought disability discrimination, overtime pay and holiday pay claims, and had sought to add further claims including notice pay and additional disability discrimination claims. The respondent conceded holiday pay and paid one week's notice pay without an order or judgment. The claimant later withdrew the remaining claim, so there was no final judgment on liability.
The tribunal rejected parts of the respondent's costs application concerning the first final hearing and did not find sufficient evidence that the claimant had made threatening calls to a respondent witness. It also did not accept that the claimant's claims had no reasonable prospects of success, noting in particular the fact-sensitive nature of the discrimination claims and that oral evidence had not been heard.
The tribunal found that the claimant had conducted proceedings unreasonably in relation to the second final hearing, including by attempting to mislead the tribunal about having had COVID, failing to make clear that he did not have internet access at home for a CVP hearing, making late disclosure and amendment requests, and not making adequate arrangements for support during the hearing. Taking account of the claimant's means, including equity in his property, the tribunal ordered him to pay £10,200 as a contribution to the respondent's costs incurred from 9 April 2021.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The substantive disability discrimination claims were withdrawn by the claimant before any final judgment on liability; the costs tribunal expressly did not find that the discrimination claims had no reasonable prospects of success. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The overtime/unauthorised deduction aspect was withdrawn with the claim. The costs tribunal did not determine liability, though it noted this aspect may have had weak prospects of success. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The respondent conceded during the proceedings that the claimant had not been paid appropriate holiday pay, and the claimant withdrew that claim. The judgment does not record the holiday pay amount. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The adjudicated application in this judgment was the respondent's costs application. The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay a contribution of £10,200 towards the respondent's costs. | Upheld | — | £10,200 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,200
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
13 references- Rule 76(1) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 78 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 84 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Haydar v Pennine Acute NHS Trust
- Gee v Shell UK Limited
- Attorney General v Barker
- Scott v Russell
- McPherson v BNP Paribas
- Yerrakalva v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council
- AQ Ltd v Holden
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board v Ferguson
- Mbuisa v Cygnet Healthcare Ltd
- Hassan v Tesco Stores Ltd
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.