Case 2419543/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Ardalani v Mr Jawad Babar t/a BMS Solicitors — 2022
- Case reference
- 2419543/2020
- Decision date
- 20 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Ardalani
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal refused the respondent's application to strike out the complaints on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success, and also refused to order a deposit as a condition of any complaint proceeding. No substantive liability findings were made on the remaining complaints in this short judgment.
The tribunal recorded that the complaints of sex and age discrimination were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. It did not record any monetary award or apportion any remedy in this decision.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were unaffected and would proceed to a final hearing as notified. Written reasons were not provided because reasons had been given orally at the hearing and no request for written reasons was made within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal recorded that the complaint of sex discrimination was dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal recorded that the complaint of age discrimination was dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- deposit order
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.