Case 2602226/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Hossain v Asda Stores Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2602226/2019
- Decision date
- 11 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Hossain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing dealing with the respondent's applications under rules 37 and/or 39 for strike out or, alternatively, deposit orders. The tribunal recorded that the applications concerned whether claims had no reasonable prospects or little reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal found that the claims were intertwined and that evidence on one claim might affect the determination of others, particularly on whether alleged discriminatory acts could amount to a continuing act. It considered that the relevant factual issues should be decided after evidence, including evidence from the respondent's witnesses, and therefore refused to strike out the claims or make deposit orders.
The claimant's costs application was dismissed. The tribunal noted that the claimant had had significant time to particularise his claims and that potential issues remained concerning time limits and continuing acts, so it could not conclude that the respondent's applications were unreasonable.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Preliminary hearing only. The claim of unlawful deductions from wages/breach of contract was not struck out and no deposit order was made; the substantive claim was not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Preliminary hearing only. The judgment refers to the claim as unlawful deductions from wages/breach of contract; it was not struck out and no deposit order was made, but the merits were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal refused to strike out the contention that some allegations of discriminatory conduct formed part of a continuing act, and left the just and equitable extension of time issue for the final hearing. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- rule 39
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.