Ms B Anwar v Boots Management Services Ltd: 2601526/2021 and 1806578/2021
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s claim (in case number 2601526/2021) of automatically unfair dismissal is by consent struck out in accordance with Rule 37(1) paragraphs (a) to (e) inclusive in Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 (“the Rules”), on the grounds that the claim has no reasonable prospect of success, and the Claimant has not sufficiently complied with Case Management Orders by EJ Knowles 21 December 2021.[2]The Respondent’s counterclaim (in case number 1806578/2021) is also struck out as it has no prospect of success.REASONS
(1) The Claimant recognises that her primary complaint of constructive unfair dismissal claim is inconsistent with her original claim that she had been dismissed unfairly because of allegedly making a public interest disclosure for the purposes of section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as amended (“ERA”) and that she sought to pursue her claims in respect of detriment caused by making such disclosure which was best pursued under Section 47B ERA .(2) The Respondent’s counterclaim was expressed in the erroneous belief that the Claimant was pursuing a claim (inter alia) of breach of contract pure and simple Case Number:2601526/2021 1806578/2021 2 of 2 which I concluded was incorrect. I found that the Claimant’s claims were purely for constructive unfair dismissal, detriment (failing to deal with her grievances as distinct from dismissal) as a result of making a public interest disclosure, breach of the Working Time Regs and failure to provide or pay holiday entitlement in full. The case had not been perceived by the Tribunal on initial case sift as being a claim of breach of contract and had not been coded as such, though this is not definitive. On examination of the pleadings I found that the Respondents were indeed mistaken and I note that when this was discussed today, they did not resist the proposal for this part of their defence being struck out which therefore disposes of action number 1806578/2021(3) For the sake of completeness, I set out below the basis upon which I had to consider the position so far as set out in relevant parts of Rule 37: - (1) At any stage of the proceedings, either on its own initiative or on the application of a party, a tribunal may strike out all or part of a claim or response on any of the following grounds – (a) that it … has no reasonable prospect of success; (b) … ; (c) for noncompliance with any of these Rules or with an order of the tribunal; (d) … ; (e) … - (my emphases) __________________________ Employment Judge R S Drake Signed 10 June 2021 Sent to the parties on: 17 June 2022 Case No: 2601526/2021 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms Bazghar Anwar Respondent: Boots Management Services Limited HELD AT: Leeds ON: 29 – 31 July 2025 BEFORE: Employment Judge JM Wade APPEARANCES: Claimant: in person Respondent: Mr J Yetman, counsel JUDGMENT[1]The claimant’s complaint of Breach of Regulation 10 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 is dismissed.[2]The claimant’s complaint of protected disclosure detriment is dismissed.[3]The claimant’s complaints of constructive unfair dismissal (including by reason of having made a protected disclosure within Section 103A of the 1996 Act) are dismissed.[4]The claimant’s unauthorised deductions from wages complaint is dismissed. Employment Judge JM Wade 31 July 2025 Case Number: 2601526/2021 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondent Ms Bazgha Anwar v Boots Management Services Limited Before: Employment Judge JM Wade (in chambers)[1]Rule 70 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 provides that the Tribunal must consider any application to reconsider a Judgment.[2]The claimant made such an application on 29 September 2025.[3]The application is an attempt to re-try the facts and/or argue the case again. The parties are entitled to legal certainty. The application has no reasonable prospects of resulting in the Judgment being varied or revoked and the application is therefore refused.[4]Before written reasons had been provided for the Tribunal’s judgment, on 7 August 2025, the claimant also applied for a costs order and a strike out of the respondent.[5]As to costs, the claimant says the respondent’s counsel asked the claimant if she was aggressive on more than one occasion and this was rude; and that the Case Number: 2601526/2021 claimant was told she was not upset at any point while employed, or in the position of resigning, “which cannot even be considered to be true”, and that these comments are vexatious.[6]She wishes strike out in light of the above and also for “putting a false narrative across”.[7]The claimant’s comments are again an attempt to re-try the facts which the Tribunal has found, and to reflect on her feelings about the questions put to her by the respondent’s counsel before she had the Tribunal’s written reasons..[8]Those reasons provide the facts found and reasoning given to the parties at the end of the case and both the claimant’s applications are misconceived. The respondent’s case was put to her properly and fairly. Both applications are dismissed. I do not consider it proportionate to invite further representations from the respondent on costs/strike out. The email was copied to the respondent and it has not engaged with it, no doubt because of the costs involved in doing so.