Case 3301557/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Sadi Khan v Lucas Film Limited and 2 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 3301557/2023
- Decision date
- 22 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Ms Sadi Khan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 18 January 2024 before Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto in Reading, the tribunal amended the name of the second respondent to Blue Stockings (UK) Limited. It then struck out the claimant's claims against Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC and The Walt Disney Company Limited under rule 37(1)(a) because those claims had no reasonable prospect of success on the pleadings before it.
The tribunal found that Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC was a US company with no UK address, had not employed or engaged the claimant, and was outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. It also said the claimant had not articulated a legal basis for liability against LFL Productions Limited or for the third respondent, despite her complaints that employees of the third respondent had taken or failed to take actions relevant to the case.
In its reasons the tribunal said that, for automatically unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal, the proper respondent was the claimant's employer. For claims under s44(1) and s47B(1) ERA 1996, direct discrimination, victimisation and harassment under s39 EqA 2010, and equal pay, the relevant respondent was Blue Stockings (UK) Limited. The judgment disposed only of the claims against the first and third respondents and made no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal said the automatically unfair dismissal claim could only be brought against the employer, which it identified as Blue Stockings (UK) Limited; the claims against Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC and The Walt Disney Company Limited were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal said the wrongful dismissal claim could only be brought against the employer, which it identified as Blue Stockings (UK) Limited; the claims against Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC and The Walt Disney Company Limited were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The judgment referred to claims under s44(1) ERA 1996 and held that the relevant respondent was Blue Stockings (UK) Limited; the claims against the first and third respondents were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment referred to claims under s47B(1) ERA 1996 and held that the relevant respondent was Blue Stockings (UK) Limited; the claims against the first and third respondents were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The judgment referred to direct discrimination claims under s39 EqA 2010 but did not specify the protected characteristic in the extracted text; the claims against the first and third respondents were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal referred to victimisation claims under s39 EqA 2010 and struck out the claims against the first and third respondents because no basis for liability was articulated. |
Legal tests applied
5 references- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- no reasonable prospect of success
- s.44(1) ERA 1996
- s.47B(1) ERA 1996
- s.39 Equality Act 2010
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.