Cases3303290/2024

Claimant v Michels Ventures 4 Limited

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(marriage civil partnership)struck out

The tribunal struck out the claim of discrimination on the grounds of marriage and civil partnership under Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success.

Direct Discrimination(religion)struck out

The tribunal struck out the claim of discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief under Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesstruck out

The tribunal struck out the claim of unauthorised deduction of wages under Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success.

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim under Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success.

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

The tribunal struck out the claims of dismissal and/or detriment related to health and safety under Rule 38(1)(a) because they had no reasonable prospect of success.

Detrimentstruck out

The tribunal struck out the claims of dismissal and/or detriment related to health and safety under Rule 38(1)(a) because they had no reasonable prospect of success.

Facts

Mr Kazis brought multiple employment claims against Michels Ventures 4 Limited under two case numbers. The claims included discrimination on grounds of marriage/civil partnership, religion, unauthorised deduction of wages, unfair dismissal, and health and safety related dismissal/detriment. The claimant appeared in person while the respondent was represented by a solicitor at a preliminary hearing.

Decision

Employment Judge Arullendran struck out all of the claimant's claims under Rule 38(1)(a) on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success. The stay on the first claim was lifted, and the scheduled final hearing for July 2026 was cancelled.

Practical note

Unrepresented claimants face significant risk of strike-out at preliminary hearings where they cannot establish even a reasonable prospect of success for their claims.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)

Case details

Case number
3303290/2024
Decision date
13 October 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
other
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Claimant representation

Represented
No