Mr A Singh v Harrods Ltd 2203747/2022
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 November 2022 |
| Date | 08 November 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 21 November 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Religion or Belief Discrimination |
Case Number: 2203747/2022
- 1 -
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
Mr A Singh
v
Harrods Ltd
Heard at: London Central (By CVP) On: 21 October 2022
Before: Employment Judge B Beyzade
Representation
For the Claimant: In person
For the Respondents: Ms A Greenley, Counsel
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The judgment of the tribunal is that:
1. the respondent’s application to strike out the claimant’s claim of
constructive unfair dismissal pursuant to Rules 37(1)(a) and 37(1)(c) or
alternatively for a deposit order under Rule 39 of Schedule 1 of the
Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations
2013 is dismissed. The claimant’s clam for unfair constructive dismissal
shall be considered at a Final Hearing and a 2-hour Preliminary Hearing
for case management purposes be listed before an Employment Judge
Case Number: 2203747/2022
- 2 -
sitting alone by Cloud Video Platform on the first open date after 30
November 2022.
2. the claimant’s claim of religion or belief discrimination submitted on 03
June 2022 was presented outside the time limit set down in s123 of the
Equality Act 2010. In the circumstances, the Tribunal does not have
jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s claim and it is dismissed.
3. The claimant’s claim for unlawful deduction from wages (in relation to a
2% pay increase in 2019) submitted on 03 June 2022 is struck out
pursuant to Rule 37(1)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals
(Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the ground
that it has no reasonable prospect of success.
4. The claimant’s claim for breach of contract (in relation to an alleged non-
payment of an enhanced pension) submitted on 03 June 2022 is struck
out pursuant to Rule 37(1)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals
(Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the ground
that it has no reasonable prospect of success.
REASONS
Introduction
1. By an ET1 Form dated 03 June 2022 the claimant presented a complaint of
constructive unfair dismissal, religion or belief discrimination, unlawful
deduction from wages (in relation to a 2% salary increase in 2019), and
breach of contract (in relation to an alleged non-payment of an enhanced
pension), which the respondent denied.
2. An Open Preliminary Hearing took place on 21 October 2022. This was a
hearing held by CVP video hearing pursuant to Rule 46 of Schedule 1 of the
Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations
2013 (“the ET Rules”). I was satisfied that the parties were content to
Case Number: 2203747/2022
- 3 -
proceed with a CVP hearing, that it was just and equitable in all the
circumstances, and that the participants in the hearing were able to see and
hear the proceedings.
3. The parties prepared and filed a Joint Bundle of documents in advance of
the hearing consisting of 67 pages, to which reference was made.
4. At an earlier Preliminary Hearing on 19 August 2022 before Employment
Judge Grewal this Preliminary Hearing was listed to determine whether the
Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the claimant’s discrimination complaint
and any strike out or deposit order application made by the respondent.
5. At the outset of this hearing the parties were advised that the Tribunal would
investigate and record the following issues as falling to be determined, both
parties being in agreement with these:
(a) Any application to strike out any of the claims or for a deposit order
made by the respondent: and
(b) Whether any of the discrimination claims were presented in time;
(c) If not, whether it would be just and equitable to consider them;
(d) If some were presented in time, whether those that were not are
capable of amounting to an act extending over a period ending with the
claims that were presented in time;
(e) If they are not capable of amounting to such a continuing act, whether
it would be just and equitable to consider them.
6. The respondent’s application dated 30 September 2022 sought an order to
strike out the claimant’s claims or alternatively a deposit order in the amount
of £1000.00. The respondent asserts that the religion or belief discrimination
claim was not presented within 3 months of the acts and omissions
complained of. Furthermore the respondent contends that the constructive
unfair dismissal, religious discrimination, unauthorised deduction from
wages and breach of contact claims have no reasonable prospect of
success (Rule 37(1)(a) of the ET Rules), or that the claimant had failed to
comply with an order of the Tribunal (Rule 37(1)(c) of the ET Rules). The
respondent’s representative asserts the claimant failed to properly plead his
claims, that he had not provided key details relating to his constructive unfair
To continue reading
Request your trial