Case 2601526/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Ms Bazghar Anwar v Boots Management Services Ltd RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022

Case reference: 2601526/2021
Decision date: 17 June 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Knowles

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms Bazghar Anwar

Respondent

Boots Management Services Ltd RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing on 10 June 2022, Employment Judge R S Drake struck out the claimant's automatically unfair dismissal claim in case 2601526/2021 by consent under Rule 37(1)(a)-(e) of the Employment Tribunals Rules 2013. The judgment records that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and that the claimant had not sufficiently complied with case management orders.

The reasons state that the claimant recognised her primary complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was inconsistent with her original claim that she had been dismissed unfairly because she had allegedly made a public interest disclosure for the purposes of section 103A ERA 1996. The tribunal also noted that any claim for detriment caused by making such a disclosure was more properly pursued under section 47B ERA 1996.

The respondent's counterclaim in case 1806578/2021 was also struck out because it had no prospect of success. The judge found that the respondent had proceeded on the mistaken belief that the claimant was pursuing a pure breach of contract claim, whereas the claimant's pleaded case was described as claims for constructive unfair dismissal, detriment for failing to deal with grievances as distinct from dismissal, breach of the Working Time Regulations, and failure to provide or pay holiday entitlement in full. No monetary award was made.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Automatically unfair dismissal claim in case 2601526/2021; struck out by consent under Rule 37(1)(a)-(e) on the grounds of no reasonable prospect of success and insufficient compliance with case management orders. The reasons refer to the claim being framed around a public interest disclosure and sections 103A and 47B ERA 1996.	Struck out	—	—
Other	Respondent's counterclaim in case 1806578/2021; struck out because it had no prospect of success. The tribunal said it was based on a mistaken belief that the claimant was pursuing a breach of contract claim.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.