Case 3303604/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Chahal v Kuehne + Nagal Drinks Logistics Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3303604/2019
- Decision date
- 24 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Daniels
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Chahal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing, the claimant's race discrimination claim was recorded as dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. Employment Judge Daniels sat alone and dealt with the respondent's application to strike out and/or seek a deposit order in relation to the direct gender discrimination claim and the unfair dismissal claim.
On unfair dismissal, the judge summarised the dismissal reasons as a health and safety incident involving the claimant allegedly jumping on the back of a lorry, and alleged rude and aggressive conduct after allegations were made against him. The claimant relied on alleged inconsistency with two agency workers, his 15 years' service and clean disciplinary record, the absence of a changed policy, and the treatment of Ms Butler. The tribunal held that there was a reasonable argument about inconsistent treatment and that the case had some merit, so it refused strike out and any deposit order.
On direct gender discrimination, the claimant argued that he was investigated and summarily dismissed while a female colleague, Ms Butler, was not investigated at all, despite comparable conduct. The judge said that, although there was no direct evidence of gender being the reason, the unexplained difference in treatment could be enough to shift the burden of proof and that the claim had a reasonable prospect of success. No strike out or deposit order was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Judgment states the claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Respondent's strike-out/deposit application was dismissed; the tribunal held the claim had a reasonable prospect of success under s.98(4) ERA 1996. | Other | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Respondent's strike-out/deposit application was dismissed; the tribunal found the unexplained difference in treatment between the claimant and Ms Butler could be enough to shift the burden of proof and that the claim had a reasonable prospect of success. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- band of reasonable responses
- no reasonable prospect of success / little reasonable prospect of success
- burden of proof
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.