Mr S Aggarwal v Menkind Stores Limited — 2020

The case was listed for a preliminary hearing in principle before Employment Judge Brewer. Mr Aggarwal’s ET1 had referred to race, age and disability discrimination, but the reasons section records that he had not identified in the claim form any basis for saying the respondent acted because of those protected characteristics, and he did not comply with orders for further information made on 30 June 2020 and again at a preliminary hearing before Judge Ahmed on 28 July 2020.

By email on 9 November 2020, Mr Aggarwal said he wished to remove the age, race and disability discrimination part from section 8 of the ET1. At the hearing he confirmed that he was no longer pursuing those discrimination claims. The tribunal therefore dismissed the age, race and disability discrimination claims on withdrawal.

Mr Aggarwal said he was instead pursuing a breach of contract claim arising from a required move from one store to another. He accepted that the respondent had a contractual right to require relocation, but said the clause required the relocation to be put in writing and that he be given a right of appeal, which he said had not happened. The tribunal explained that its contract jurisdiction was governed by the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, and that such claims are limited to sums due on termination.

Mr Aggarwal confirmed that he was not owed any money on termination, and the tribunal found that his complaints about the relocation procedure concerned only the absence of writing and an appeal process. Those matters did not of themselves give rise to damages. The breach of contract claim was therefore held to be misconceived and struck out under Rule 37(1) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The hearing listed for 11 to 13 October 2021 was cancelled as a result.