Claimant v Mr Sivagnanam Gnanachandran t/a Dales Off Licence & News
Outcome
Individual claims
Strike out application refused. Time limits, knowledge, and fact of dismissal are disputed issues requiring full hearing with evidence. Tribunal expressed caution about respondent's contentions but declined to strike out or order deposit in discrimination case.
Strike out refused. Facts advanced appear more akin to s.15 claim than direct discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010. Can only be sensibly determined at full hearing with all evidence. Even on claimant's highest case, s.13 not definitively made out.
Failure to provide s.1 statement claim - strike out refused due to possible time point. Agreed fact that claimant was not provided with compliant statement of terms. Deposit order made (detailed in separate document).
Holiday pay claim - respondent's defence struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. Agreed fact that respondent never paid holiday pay. Claim in time (monthly payments, time runs from end June). No defence available - wholesale failure to pay contrary to Working Time Regulations. Not a defence that claimant didn't request holiday.
SSP claim - strike out refused but deposit order made. Agreed fact claimant not paid SSP whilst sick. Claimant appears to meet qualifying criteria (earning £123+ per week, ill 4+ days, employed). Claimant needs to formally establish working pattern facts at trial before liability determined.
Strike out and deposit order refused. Squarely a question of fact requiring evidence. Claimant must prove case. Respondent has duty to keep working time records. Absence of respondent documents/explanation will cause problems but premature to strike out before basic facts about working pattern established at hearing.
Facts
Claimant worked for respondent's off licence business and was paid monthly at around £123+ per week for approximately 60 hours per month. Employment ended in disputed circumstances - claimant says 28 June 2021 communication, respondent says 30 May 2021 when claimant submitted fit notes. Respondent never paid claimant any holiday pay or SSP during sickness absence. Respondent failed to provide written statement of terms and conditions. Claimant alleges disability discrimination, unlawful deductions, and NMW breaches.
Decision
Tribunal struck out respondent's defence to holiday pay claim as having no reasonable prospects - wholesale failure to pay with no available defence. Most other claims refused strike out as requiring full evidential hearing, particularly on disputed facts about termination date, working pattern, and discrimination. Two deposit orders made (separate document) relating to s.1 statement and SSP claims.
Practical note
A total failure to pay holiday pay over the employment relationship is indefensible and will be struck out at preliminary hearing - the obligation exists regardless of whether the employee requested time off.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2414433/2021
- Decision date
- 30 September 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- No
- Rep type
- self
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister