Case 6012029/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ravichandran Venugopal v One Stop Stores Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6012029/2024
- Decision date
- 20 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Young Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ravichandran Venugopal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent applied to strike out the Claimant's claim on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of success. It relied on earlier case management records stating that the Claimant had accepted that, save for unfair dismissal, the other claims were not viable, and that the list of issues had not been amended by the stated deadline.
The Tribunal noted that the earlier case management order had not dismissed the other causes of action and had allowed the Claimant time to consider the list of issues. Applying the authorities cited on caution in strike-out applications, particularly where a litigant in person has pleaded unclearly and English is not their first language, the Tribunal refused to strike out the race discrimination and victimisation complaints.
The Tribunal also refused to strike out the unfair dismissal complaint. It held that whether the appeal decision dealt with the Claimant's points, and whether the dismissal and investigation were fair, were matters for the trial tribunal rather than for determination on the strike-out application.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal refused the Respondent's application to strike out the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint; the merits of the claim were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The Tribunal refused to strike out the race discrimination complaint; the judgment records lack of clarity and does not determine the merits. | Other | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The Tribunal refused to strike out the victimisation complaint; the judgment records that its basis was clarified in submissions but does not determine the merits. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the Claimant withdrew his whistleblowing complaint, so it was dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- rule 38(1) of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024
- no reasonable prospect of success
- Mbiusa v Cygnet Healthcare Ltd UKEAT/0119/18
- Zeb v Xerox (UK) Ltd UKEAT/0091/15
- section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.