Ms T Jauhal v AIZ Consulting and Diverso: 6006480/2025

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 6006480/2025, 2203109/2019

Between

Ms T JauhalClaimant

AIZ Consulting and DiversoRespondent

Before

Employment Judge O Segal KC

In person for claimant

Date 23 September 2025

JUDGMENT

This claim is struck out pursuant to rule 38(1)(a)

REASONS

[1]The Claimant (C) was employed by either the First or Second Respondent until 1 March 2019. C now says that her employer was the Second Respondent (she had previously understood it to be the First Respondent); the First Respondent believes it had been her employer. In the circumstances set out below, it is not necessary for me to explore that issue.

[2]In about April 2019 C brought a claim against the First Respondent, case number 2203109/2019, which was heard by this tribunal (EJ A James) on 3 October 2019. The tribunal rejected C’s claims of underpayment of wages and holiday pay.

[3]C now says that, although not identifying them in terms, she had included by implication in that first claim claims of discrimination and unfair dismissal (C would have had insufficient continuity of service to bring a claim of unfair dismissal in any event, her employment having begun in 2018). There was no mention of those claims in the Judgment and Reasons of the tribunal and, it appears, no attempt by C at the hearing to press those claims or amend to include them. - 1 -

[4]By her present claim, presented on 25 February 2025, C seeks to complain of unfair (constructive) dismissal in March 2019, underpayments, and discrimination because of various protected characteristics during her employment in 2018 and up to her dismissal in March 2019.

[5]The tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim even had it been brought in time, as explained above. That claim and all of the other claims are now presented over 5 years out of time. Some of the underpayment claims may also have been adjudicated in 2019.

[6]However, most importantly, C is not able to bring claims in 2025 that she could and should have brought as part of the claim she issued against the First Respondent in about April 2019; to do so is an abuse of the court’s process: Henderson v Henderson 1843 3 Hare 100, ChD; Johnson v Gore Wood & Co

[2002] 2 AC 1

, HL.

[7]For all those reasons, the tribunal has no option other than to strike out the present claim pursuant to rule 38(1)(a) on the basis that it is vexatious (in the legal sense) and has no reasonable prospect of success.

[8]To be fair to the Claimant, she did not really oppose that analysis (save to say she had been led to believe that there was a six year time limit for contractual claims in the tribunal – whereas in fact, that time limit only applies in the civil courts).

[9]Most of the PH was taken up rather with C explaining why she was dissatisfied with the way in which her first claim had been dealt with, saying that she did not feel she had a fair trial for various reasons which I do not need to rehearse here. I explained in broad terms what avenues were open to a claimant who was dissatisfied with the way her claim had been adjudicated (reconsideration by the ET, or an appeal to the EAT) and the relevant time limits that applied, which had long expired.