Mrs Niculena Banu v Karali QSR Ltd — 2026

Mrs Niculena Banu was employed by Karali QSR Ltd as a team member at a Taco Bell restaurant in Brighton. The respondent relied on redundancy as the reason for her dismissal following consultation and the closure of the outlet. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that alternative employment at another Brighton outlet was offered on unchanged terms apart from the place of work, and that Mrs Banu refused that offer.

The tribunal accepted that Mrs Banu was paid £1,985.52 net of tax and National Insurance on 19 March 2025, comprising the notice pay and final holiday pay which the respondent regarded as due. It found no evidence that any sums other than tax and National Insurance had been withheld. The breach of contract, unlawful deduction from wages and holiday pay claims were struck out under Rule 38(1)(a)-(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024.

The tribunal found that the pleaded case did not establish a viable public interest disclosure detriment claim. Applying the authorities concerning strike-out and the requirement to assess the claim as pleaded in the ET1, it concluded that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success. The public interest disclosure detriment claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a)-(d).

The tribunal also found that Mrs Banu had not served documentary evidence or a witness statement, had not engaged with the respondent over disclosure and witness-statement exchange, and had not complied with case management requirements. It concluded that the proceedings had been conducted unreasonably, that tribunal orders or rules had not been complied with, and that the claims had not been actively pursued. It found that the balance of prejudice favoured striking out all the claims.

Mrs Banu's principal complaint was described as being in effect an unfair dismissal complaint, but no unfair dismissal claim had been pleaded. The tribunal did not permit an amendment because, given the passage of time, the proposed claim would be out of time. Paragraph 20 additionally records dismissal of a failure to make reasonable adjustments claim because disability at the relevant time was not established, although that claim is not identified in the operative list of claims at paragraph 1. No monetary award was made.