Case 6012108/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Singh v K.T.C (Edibles) Ltd RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 6012108/2024
- Decision date
- 17 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Boyle Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Singh
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was a reserved decision following a preliminary hearing about amendment, strike-out and deposit order applications. The tribunal granted the claimant permission to proceed with claims for automatic unfair dismissal under s103A ERA 1996, detriment on the ground of making protected disclosures under s47B ERA 1996, and an unlawful deduction of wages claim limited to whether he was paid at the correct rate for his role at the time of dismissal.
The tribunal refused amendments to add automatic unfair dismissal for health and safety reasons under s100 ERA 1996, direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, breach of contract and wrongful dismissal. It found those matters were new claims or insufficiently particularised, and in relation to the race and harassment allegations referred to delay, lack of particulars and the burden on the respondent.
The respondent's applications for strike out and deposit orders were refused for the remaining claims. The tribunal stated that, based on the particulars provided, it could not be said that the remaining claims had no or little prospects of success.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal granted amendment/particularisation for automatic unfair dismissal under s103A ERA 1996 and detriment on the ground of making protected disclosures under s47B ERA 1996, with time issues for detriment to be decided at the final hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal refused amendment to include automatic unfair dismissal for health and safety reasons under s100 ERA 1996; no final merits outcome was determined. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held the ET1 contained an unlawful deduction of wages claim limited to whether the claimant was paid at the correct rate for his role at the time of dismissal, with back pay limited to two years; historic claims relating to 2021 and earlier were not permitted by amendment. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal refused amendment to include direct race discrimination, finding it was a new claim not presented in the ET1 and not reasonable on balance to allow it to proceed. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal refused amendment to include harassment related to race, finding it was a new claim not presented in the ET1 and not reasonable on balance to allow it to proceed. | Other | Race | — |
| Breach of contract |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s103A ERA 1996
- s47B ERA 1996
- s100 ERA 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.