Case 6001041/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Meshell Khan v The A&S Leisure Group Ltd (t/a Napoleon’s Casino Bradford) RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2023
- Case reference
- 6001041/2023
- Decision date
- 3 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rogerson’
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Meshell Khan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the public preliminary hearing and no explanation for non-attendance was provided. The tribunal was satisfied that relevant correspondence had been sent to the address nominated by the claimant, and noted that she had not responded to several tribunal communications, including directions and a strike-out warning.
The tribunal found that the ET1 pleaded unfair dismissal and disability discrimination but did not set out a causal connection between disability and dismissal, the nature of the alleged discrimination, or any alleged detriment or unfavourable treatment other than dismissal. It also found that the claimant had not denied the allegation of sexual harassment treated by the respondent as gross misconduct.
On the claimant's pleaded case, and in the absence of clarification or an amendment application, the tribunal concluded that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success. It also concluded that the claimant was not actively pursuing the claims, so both claims were struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) and (d) and dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) and (d) as having no reasonable prospect of success and not being actively pursued; the judgment also states that it was therefore dismissed. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The disability discrimination claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) and (d) as having no reasonable prospect of success and not being actively pursued; the judgment also states that it was therefore dismissed. The judgment records that disability was not conceded or proved. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37(1)(a)
- Rule 37(1)(d)
- band of reasonable responses
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.