Mr Sohail M Khan v Uber London Limited — 2026

At the hearing on 8 July 2026, Employment Judge E Macdonald considered Mr Sohail M Khan's wrongful dismissal complaint against Uber London Limited and two remaining allegations of whistleblowing detriment. The wrongful dismissal complaint was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it was presented out of time. Both detriment allegations were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable to present the wrongful dismissal complaint within three months less one day of the alleged dismissal on 16 October 2024. It relied on the reasons given in its earlier unfair dismissal time-limit decision. Alternatively, a further reasonable period would have been no more than four weeks after the primary time limit expired. The complaint would still have been late.

The first detriment allegation concerned an alleged failure to answer an email from the claimant's MP dated 21 February 2025, despite a chaser on 20 March 2025. Uber produced an email from the MP's caseworker dated 20 March acknowledging a short reply, together with Uber's substantive response dated 28 March 2025. The claimant did not dispute the documents and had no answer to the respondent's submission that they showed a response had been sent.

The second allegation concerned an alleged failure to answer letters from the claimant's solicitor dated 25 March and 17 April 2025. Uber produced its response dated 21 May 2025. Again, the claimant did not dispute the document and had no answer to the respondent's submission that it established a response had been sent.

Applying Mechkarov v Citibank NA and the caution required in whistleblowing cases under Bahad v HSBC Bank plc, the tribunal took the claimant's case at its highest but found it conclusively disproved by undisputed contemporaneous documents. The core question of whether replies had been sent did not require oral evidence or a mini trial. The tribunal then considered its discretion and the overriding objective. It found no compelling reason against strike-out, concluding that continuing the claims would cause wholly avoidable expense and an unnecessary burden on tribunal resources. No monetary award was recorded.