Mrs S Lakhani and Mr S Thiruganasammanthar v Satsa Ltd: 2225349/2024 and 2225350/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The claims are struck out[2]By 3/12/25 the Claimants must pay the Respondent the sum of £2000.25, jointly and severally, the one paying, the other to be absolved.REASONS
[1]The background facts are set out in the previous judgment of EJ Sutton KC sent to the parties on 15/4/25. In summary, the Claimants seek compensation arising out of what they say was their dismissal as employees of a petrol garage business trading as Studley Grange Service Station, when it was acquired by the Respondent on or about 2 July 2024. It was held in the previous judgment that a TUPE transfer took place. The remaining issues in the case were(i) whether the Claimants were in fact employees of the transferor prior to the transfer, and if so(ii) what their terms and conditions of employment were and(iii) whether they were dismissed.[2]The Respondent acquired the business in what has been referred to as a hostile take-over. The franchisor of the business summarily removed the previous franchisee (a company operated by Mr Rashid who is representing the Claimants today) and replaced it with the Respondent. Hence there was no opportunity for the Respondent to engage in communications with the transferor to obtain business information and employee details etc.[3]The Claimants were present at the business when it was acquired and they claimed to be employees. The Respondent asked them to verify this by producing payslips, but the payslips did not seem genuine. The Respondent asked for their P60s and employment contracts and to have a meeting with them to discuss the matter but they declined and brought these proceedings.[4]EJ Sutton KC directed the Claimants to provide specific disclosure of documents requested by the Respondent which documents were then specified in a letter dated 30 January 2025 as follows:• Contract of Employment for both Claimants.• Last three years P60s for both Claimants (2021-2022, 2022-2023, 2023-2024).• Last six months payslips (JAN 24, FEB 24, MAR 24, APR 24, MAY 24, JUN 24) for both Claimants.• Personal bank statements corresponding to the same period (From JAN 24 To JUNE 24) as the payslips showing that the salary has been paid into an account in the name of the person (for both Claimants).[5]The Claimants partially complied with the Order but the bank statements, payslips and employment contracts which they produced raised many further queries and doubts which were then set out in detail in a Respondent application dated 25/2/25 for an unless order.[6]Two examples of the many anomalies are as follows:(i) despite the fact that the Claimants claimed to have been paid by bank transfer, the Claimant’s bank statements did not show the receipt of the pay shown in the payslips.(ii) the employment contracts which purported to have been signed in 2015 were printed on stationery produced in 2025.[7]The Claimants continued to fail to provide proper disclosure or explanation of the anomalies so the Respondent renewed its application in response to which EJ Adkin on 31/10/2025 made an Unless Order in the following terms: “The Claimants are ORDERED to disclose the following to the Respondent by 7 November 2025:• metadata of the payslips provided• metadata of the employment contracts provided• copy of the emails showing the payslips/contracts received by the Claimants It will not be a satisfactory excuse to state that the Claimants do not know how to do this. Guidance on obtaining the metadata for a particular file type can be easily found using a Google search. If the Claimant fails to comply with this order, the Tribunal may:• Strike out the claim or part of the claim on the basis that the Claimant has failed to comply with a Tribunal order; or• Draw an inference that these documents are not genuine.’[8]The Claimants failed to comply with the Unless Order by 7/11/25 or at all.[9]Today Mr Rashid said that neither he nor the Claimants had made any effort to provide the metadata or find out how to get it. He failed to provide any coherent explanation about why the emails sending the payslips/contracts to the Claimants had not been produced.[10]In a copy-cat cross application made by Mr Rashid on 16/11/25 the following is included: “The Respondents have made reference about Employment Contract and Law DepotThese are the Contract that the Head Company required to use and they were just given as an example of course the original Contracts are in the file which are being held in the office and being denied by the Respondents!”[11]This statement (which was clearly prompted by the unless order that the employment contract metadata should be produced) is in effect an admission on behalf of the Claimants that the documents produced by them in February 2025 (pursuant to the specific disclosure order) as their actual 2015 employment contracts were in fact nothing of the kind but were fabricated for purposes of the litigation in February 2025.[12]In their witness statements for the trial Mr Rashid and the Claimants have failed to engage with or attempt to provide any reasonable explanation for the numerous anomalies, internal contradictions and lacunae in their disclosure.[13]In the circumstances I infer that the payslips and contracts produced by the Claimants are not genuine.[14]I conclude that the Claimants (probably lead by Mr Rashid who agreed today that he is fully responsible for the way the Claimants have conducted these claims) have systematically and deliberately fabricated and forged documents to try to create evidence that they were employees of the transferred business.[15]The anomalies which the Respondent has pointed out suggest that although the Claimants may have had some connection to Mr Rashid when he his company was operating the business, they were probably not employees and did not receive regular pay either at all or at anything like the levels which they have sought to pretend in their fake evidence.[16]Even if they were employees, and had been dismissed (neither of which are admitted by the Respondent) it would be impossible for me to ascertain what their terms and conditions were, (which I would need to do in order to make any awards to them) because that information, to the extent that it exists, has not been disclosed in an honest or credible fashion, and instead consists of fake evidence. The Claimants have nil credibility and I could not sensibly give any weight to their evidence or to any of the contested documents.[17]The problems go to the whole of the claims and not to just part of them.[18]It would be pointless proceeding with the trial (which was listed for three days starting today) because the claims would be bound to fail for the above reasons.[19]It is appropriate to exercise my discretion to strike out each claim and I do so on all of the following grounds in Rule 38: “(a)that it is scandalous or vexatious or has no reasonable prospect of success; (b)that the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted by or on behalf of the claimant or the respondent (as the case may be) has been scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious; (c)for non-compliance with any of these Rules or with an order of the Tribunal; (d)….. (e)that the Tribunal considers that it is no longer possible to have a fair hearing in respect of the claim, response or reply (or the part to be struck out).”[20]The Respondent applied for costs of £2000.25 under Rule 74 which includes the following: The Tribunal must consider making a costs order or a preparation time order where it considers that— (a)a party (or that party’s representative) has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in either the bringing of the proceedings, or part of it, or the way that the proceedings, or part of it, have been conducted, (b)any claim, response or reply had no reasonable prospect of success, or (c)….. (3) The Tribunal may also make a costs order or a preparation time order (as appropriate) on the application of a party where a party has been in breach of any order,…”.[21]All the above grounds are engaged.[22]Mr Rashid said that he was responsible for what the Claimants had done and offered to pay but he also said that he is a lay representative not acting in pursuit of profit with regard to the proceedings. Hence, I cannot make a wasted costs order against him.[23]It is appropriate to exercise my discretion to order costs. The Claimants, whether through Mr Rashid or otherwise, have conducted these proceedings in a dishonest and vexatious manner. The costs claimed are very modest in quantum having regard to the complexity and difficulties which they have caused. J S Burns