Case 3300357/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Saida Shah v A&A Enterprises London Limited and 3 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 3300357/2023
- Decision date
- 5 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill KC
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Miss Saida Shah
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing at Watford on 10 November 2023 before Employment Judge McNeill KC, the claimant appeared in person, assisted by Mr David Gardner. The tribunal recorded that the claims against the Second and Third Respondents were dismissed because the claimant withdrew them.
The tribunal struck out the claims against the First and Fourth Respondents under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, finding them to be an abuse of process and to have no reasonable prospect of success. No monetary award was made. The tribunal also noted that any costs application by the Second and/or Fourth Respondents had to be made in writing, with the claimant given a reasonable opportunity to respond; full reasons for the strike-out were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claims against the Second and Third Respondents were dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The claims against the First and Fourth Respondents were struck out under rule 37 as an abuse of process and as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- abuse of process
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.