Case 2601390/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss. K Khatun v Brook Street (UK) Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2601390/2021
- Decision date
- 19 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss. K Khatun
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing by Employment Judge Heap sitting alone. The tribunal added the Ministry of Justice as a second respondent, granted the claimant's amendment application, refused the respondent's strike-out application, and gave leave for an amended ET3. The claimant also withdrew the complaint of failure to pay holiday pay, which was recorded as dismissed on withdrawal.
On the unfair dismissal complaint under s.99 Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal declined to strike the claim out. The respondent relied on the termination letter and contract clause 6.5, saying employment ended because the claimant had not stayed in contact after the assignment; the claimant said the real reason was pregnancy-related illness and that the matter could not be resolved without hearing evidence from the decision-maker.
The tribunal took the same approach to the main pregnancy discrimination complaint under s.18 Equality Act 2010 and to most of the victimisation allegations. It held that the complaints about the failure to offer further assignments and the termination of employment, and most of the victimisation matters, turned on disputed facts and inferences and should go to a full hearing. It did, however, find that the complaint about failing to respond to or address the alleged discrimination in the MOJ's termination of the assignment, and the victimisation complaint about failing to ask the MOJ to reconsider, had little reasonable prospect of success, so deposit orders were made in separate orders. No merits findings or compensation award were made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The complaint of failure to pay 'other payments' (holiday pay) was recorded as dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal refused the respondent's strike-out application under Rule 37 and held that the unfair dismissal complaint under s.99 Employment Rights Act 1996 had a reasonable prospect of success and should proceed to a full hearing. The issue turned on whether the termination was because of pregnancy-related illness or because the claimant had not kept in contact after the last assignment. | Other | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal refused strike out of the main pregnancy discrimination complaints under s.18 Equality Act 2010 about not being offered further assignments after the MOJ assignment and about termination of employment. It held those issues required evidence and cross-examination; the separate complaint that Brook Street failed to respond to or address the alleged discrimination in the MOJ's termination of the assignment was found to have little reasonable prospect of success and was made subject to a deposit order in a separate order. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Victimisation | Eight victimisation complaints were advanced. The tribunal held that most of them had to be decided after evidence and cross-examination, but the complaint that Brook Street failed to ask the MOJ to reconsider the assignment termination was found to have little reasonable prospect of success and was made subject to a deposit order in a separate order. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Rule 37 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College
- Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Ahir v British Airways Plc
- Rule 39 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Hemdan v Ishmail & Anor
- s.99 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.18 Equality Act 2010
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.