Case 3205774/2022 · Employment Tribunal

(1) Mr S Abbasi (2) Mr K Khawaja v MyLahore Birmingham Limited (First Claimant) and 1 other — 2024

Case reference: 3205774/2022
Decision date: 15 July 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Reid Representation

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

(1) Mr S Abbasi (2) Mr K Khawaja

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the hearing on 12 July 2024, Employment Judge Reid struck out the First and Second Claimants' automatic unfair dismissal claims under s103A Employment Rights Act 1996 under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal held that those claims had no reasonable prospect of success.

The First Claimant's unpaid wages claim was also struck out under the same rule and on the same basis. The judgment does not record any monetary award because no remedy was made on the claims decided in this judgment.

After those strike-outs, the judgment states that the claims continuing for both Claimants were the ordinary unfair dismissal claims and the detriment claims under s47B Employment Rights Act 1996, to be dealt with by separate orders. The Respondents indicated that they may make a further strike-out application, potentially in relation to time limit issues on the detriment claims, after receiving the Claimants' response to those orders.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	The judgment describes this as the First and Second Claimants' automatic unfair dismissal claims under s103A Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal struck both claims out under Rule 37(1)(a) on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success.	Struck out	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The First Claimant's unpaid wages claim only. It was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) on the basis that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.	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.

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.