Mr B Khalid v Assisted by Interpreter, Mr Malik Mr M Aslam and 1 other — 2025

At the preliminary hearing on 30 April 2025, the tribunal dealt with the claimant's failure to comply with earlier orders requiring him to specify his claims by answering numbered questions. The claimant had sent narrative correspondence and supporting documents, but not the ordered particulars, including date-by-date details of any unpaid hours. The tribunal noted that the claimant was self-represented and that English was not his first language, but found those matters did not explain the non-compliance, and it concluded that the failure was deliberate.

The tribunal considered the claims that could be discerned from the material supplied. It found that the holiday pay complaint had no statable basis because the claimant accepted he had been paid in lieu of annual leave on termination for the last year of employment. The working-time/rest-break allegation was said to be wholly lacking in specification, and the tribunal accepted the respondent's position that the claimant was entitled to a 30-minute paid break during each shift. The sex discrimination allegation, based on the claimant saying he had to deal with deliveries while a female colleague remained at the till, was also found to be insufficiently specified and without prospects of success. The whistleblowing complaint was said to be vague and unspecified, with no identified protected disclosure, recipient, date, or detriment.

The tribunal also dealt with the claimant's complaint about paternity leave, which it described as woefully unspecified and outside its apparent jurisdiction, and with the redundancy payment complaint, which it said was hopeless because the claimant had not answered the questions put to him. It recorded that, apart from the sex discrimination and whistleblowing allegations, the claimant had not advanced any basis on which the second respondent could be liable for the claims he sought to make.

The tribunal struck out and dismissed the claims against the first respondent in their entirety, and struck out and dismissed the claims against the second respondent except for the unpaid wages complaint. That unlawful deduction from wages claim was left open only on a conditional basis: the claimant was ordered to provide the specific dates, hours, pay due, and supporting documents within 7 days. If he did not comply, the claim would be struck out without further procedure. The tribunal also noted that if the claimant complied but the respondent still maintained that a fair trial was impossible because of the allegation of witness interference, an in-person hearing could be listed to determine that issue, subject to there being no ongoing police enquiry.