Case 3204759/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Dhar v Ford Retail Limited t/a and 2 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 3204759/2022
- Decision date
- 5 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Povey Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
4 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 4 May 2023, Employment Judge S Povey considered the Claimant's complaints against Ford Retail Limited t/a TrustFord and Sytner Group Limited. The judgment records that, save for the complaints of disability discrimination and unpaid wages against the first respondent, the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine the other complaints brought against the first respondent.
The tribunal held that those other complaints had no reasonable prospects of success and struck them out under Rule 37 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. It also held that it had no jurisdiction to determine any of the complaints against the second respondent, and struck those out for the same reason. The judgment does not determine the disability discrimination or unpaid wages complaints.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment struck out the complaints against the first respondent other than the complaints of disability discrimination and unpaid wages. The tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to determine those other complaints and that they had no reasonable prospects of success under Rule 37. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The judgment struck out all complaints brought against the second respondent. The tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to determine those complaints and that they had no reasonable prospects of success under Rule 37. | Struck out | — | — |
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.