Case 6012109/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Lakshmanan v N D K Construction Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6012109/2024
- Decision date
- 5 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Lakshmanan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned the respondent's application to strike out the claim at an open preliminary hearing. The claimant relied on alleged abusive language and behaviour by Mr Derza, including alleged racial slurs, while the respondent denied abusive or racist behaviour and pointed to the absence of independent corroboration.
Employment Judge Heath held that this was a case of one person's word against another. Applying the approach to strike-out applications in discrimination claims, the judge took the claimant's case at its highest and declined to conduct a mini-trial of disputed facts.
The tribunal refused the strike-out application. It noted that the claimant's account might or might not be accepted at a final hearing, but that assessment was for the final hearing rather than the preliminary strike-out application.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The judgment refused the respondent's strike-out application. The merits of the race-related harassment claim were not finally determined. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Mechkarov v Citibank NA
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students' Union
- Eszias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Chandok v Tirkey
- Ahir v British Airways plc
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.