Mr Urfan Dar v Beltrami and Company Ltd: 4104534/2017
| Judgment Date | 12 December 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Public Interest Disclosure |
| Date | 12 December 2018 |
| Citation | 4104534/2017 |
| Published date | 30 April 2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
E.T. Z4 (WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: 4104534/2017
5
Held in Glasgow on 1 November 2018
(Preliminary Hearing)
Employment Judge: Ian McPherson
10
Mr Urfan Dar Claimant
In Person
15
Beltrami & Company Ltd Respondents
Represented by:
Mr Kenneth McGuire
Advocate
20
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that:
(1) Having heard the claimant in person, and counsel for the respondents, at the
25
Preliminary Hearing held on 1 November 2018, in respect of the claimant’s
opposed applications to amend his ET1 claim, dated 7 September (and his
earlier application dated 27 June) 2018, the Tribunal has refused the
claimant’s applications, it not being in the interests of justice, nor in
accordance with the Tribunal’s overring objective to deal with the case fairly
30
and justly, to allow the amendments sought by the claimant;
(2) As regards (a) the respondents’ application to Strike Out the claim; and (b)
the respondents’ application for Expenses against the claimant, both
applications dated 19 September 2018, as read together with the
35
respondents’ skeleton arguments of 22 and 25 October 2018 , the Tribunal
notes and records, of consent of both parties’ representatives, that these
4104534/2017 Page 2
matters were held in abeyance, pending the Tribunal’s reserved Judgment
on the opposed amendment application being issued; and
(3) Both parties should now reflect on their respective positions as regards those
matters, and further Case Management Orders in those respects have been
5
issued under separate cover, by letter from the Tribunal, and they accompany
the copy of this reserved Judgment sent to both parties.
REASONS
10
Introduction
1. Further to an amended Notice of Preliminary Hearing issued to both parties,
under cover of the Tribunal’s letter dated 24 October 2018, this case called
again before me, on Thursday, 1 November 2018, for a Preliminary Hearing
to determine the claimant’s opposed application to amend his ET1, and the
15
respondents’ opposed applications for Strike Out of the claim / Deposit Order.
2. That amended Notice of Preliminary Hearing superceded an earlier Notice,
issued to both parties, under cover of the Tribunal’s letter dated 18 September
2018, for a Preliminary Hearing to determine the preliminary issues outlined
20
in Order (6) of my written Note and Orders dated 14 September 2018, issued
to both parties, under cover of the Tribunal’s letter dated 17 September 2018.
3. That Note and Orders was issued following a Case Management Preliminary
Hearing held before me, in private, on Friday, 7 September 2018, and it
25
followed upon a long and detailed earlier procedural history in this litigation,
since the ET1 claim form was first presented to the Tribunal on 10 September
2017.
4. That Order (6) stated that:
30
4104534/2017 Page 3
“(6) The Tribunal notes and records that that public Preliminary
Hearing will be to address the claimant’s opposed applications to
amend the ET1 claim form, as per (a) his application dated 27 June
2018 to add “post-termination claims”, further to his earlier
document, intimated on 21 January 2018, being his response to the
5
respondents’ application for reconsideration, and as per (b) his
application made at this Hearing, by e-mail sent at 11:33, seeking to
augment the existing ET1claim form by adding the Scott Schedule
previously intimated on 21 January 2018.”
10
5. While, at that time, Mr Stephen Smith, the respondents’ representative, had
given notice, at that Case Management Preliminary Hearing, on 7 September
2018, that there would be an application by the respondents seeking Strike
Out of the claim, which failing a Deposit Order, and for Expenses against the
claimant, formal application was not made until 19 September 2018, when he
15
intimated an application, in 7 parts, including the respondents’ applications
for Strike Out, Deposit Order, and Expenses.
6. Thereafter, on 15 October 2018, by letter from the Tribunal to both parties,
sent on my instructions, I ruled that certain of those 7 matters (Nos. 2 to 5,
20
seeking Strike Out and Deposit Orders) be added to the agenda for the
already listed Preliminary Hearing on 1 November 2018, assigned to
determine the claimant’s opposed application to amend his ET1 claim form.
7. Those matters, Nos. 2 to 5, read as follows:
25
“2. The Respondents seek an Order in terms of Regulation 37 (1)(a)
of the ET Regulations that the Claim be struck out, in whole or in part,
as it is scandalous or vexatious, or has no prospect of success;
30
3.The Respondents also seek an Order in terms of Regulation 37
(1)(b) of the ET Regulations that the Claim be struck out, in whole or
in part, as the manner in which the Claimant has conducted
proceedings has been scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious, in
particular by seeking to amend the Claim by introducing an 81-page
35
To continue reading
Request your trial