Case 3201110/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Rel v L & K Hotels Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3201110/2023
- Decision date
- 9 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Suzanne Palmer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Rel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant brought claims arising from his employment as a part-time handyman, including unfair constructive dismissal, notice pay, unpaid holiday pay, alleged deductions from pay, and Working Time Regulations issues. An application to amend to add race discrimination allegations was refused orally at the hearing and the judgment did not determine those allegations as substantive claims.
The Respondent applied to strike out the claim under Rule 38(1)(b), alleging that the Claimant had threatened or intimidated Mr Jablonski, a material witness, after the hearing adjourned part-heard. The Tribunal preferred Mr Jablonski's evidence about the telephone call and found that the Claimant's words were reasonably perceived as a threat intended to influence or deter him from giving evidence.
The Tribunal concluded that the Claimant had conducted the proceedings in a scandalous, vexatious or unreasonable manner, that Mr Jablonski's evidence was significant across the substantive issues, and that a fair hearing was no longer possible. It found no lesser sanction capable of remedying the situation and struck out the claim in its entirety.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment struck out the claim in its entirety under Rule 38(1)(b) before determining the substantive constructive dismissal issues. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The pleaded notice pay/wrongful dismissal issue was struck out with the rest of the claim before substantive determination. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The unpaid holiday pay claim was struck out with the rest of the claim before substantive determination. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The alleged deduction of holiday and furlough pay from cash payments was struck out with the rest of the claim before substantive determination. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The Working Time Regulations issues about rest breaks and working more than 48 hours per week were struck out with the rest of the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The annex listed issues about itemised pay slips and National Minimum Wage Act 1998; these do not map cleanly to a more specific locked enum and were struck out with the rest of the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 38(1)(b) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- overriding objective
- Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James [2006] IRLR 630 CA
- De Keyser Ltd v Wilson [2001] IRLR 324 EAT
- Bolch v Chipman [2004] IRLR 140 EAT
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.