Mr M S Saatci v Richmond Food & Supply Ltd and Others: 6040979/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 6040979/2025
Between
Mr M S SaatciClaimant(1) Richmond Food & Supply Ltd (2) Mr A Singh (3) Mr A Kumar (4) Mrs C SinghRespondentDate 17 March 2026
JUDGMENT
The claims against the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents are struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The claim as against the First Respondent shall proceed to the Final Hearing on 14 April 2026.
REASONS
[1]By an application dated 11 March 2026 the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents (together, the Individual Respondents) sought the strike out of the claims against them on the basis the claims have no reasonable prospects of success pursuant to Rule 38(1)(a). Specifically, it is argued that the Individual Respondents were not the Claimant’s employer, rather that they acted as representatives of the First Respondent, and therefore cannot be individually liable.[2]The Claimant has provided a detailed response to the application dated 13 March 2026 resisting the strike-out.[3]I am satisfied that it is in the interests of justice, consistent with the overriding objective, and in compliance with the safeguard in Rule 38(2) to determine the application based on the written submissions and without a hearing.[4]It is important first of all to identify what the Claimant’s claims are. This is made clear in the table in paragraph 4 of his Statement of Case which was attached to the ET1 claim form. He claims:a. He was not paid salary for the period 1 June to 30 September 2025 (approximate gross amount: £20,000);b. He is owed 3 months’ payment in lieu of notice (approximate gross amount: £16,250); andc. He is owed accrued holiday pay of approximately £2,923.55. (I should note that, in a subsequently filed Schedule of Loss, the Claimant seeks much wider ranging relief. However, unless an application is made to amend the claim, the scope of the claim is limited to what is pleaded in the ET1 claim form and its attachment.)[5]The legal basis for these claims can only be (my emphasis added):a.Section 23(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996: “[A worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal] that his employer has made a deduction from his wages in contravention of section 13…”b. Regulation 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994: “Proceedings may be brought before an employment tribunal in respect of a claim of an employee for the recovery of damages or any other sum (other than a claim for damages, or for a sum due, in respect of personal injuries) if(a) the claim is one to which section 131(2) of the 1978 Act applies and which a court in England and Wales would under the law for the time being in force have jurisdiction to hear and determine;(b) the claim is not one to which article 5 applies; and(c) the claim arises or is outstanding on the termination of the employee’s employment.” The reference to “section 131(2) of the 1978 Act” refers to a provision now replaced by section 3(2) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996: “Subject to subsection (3), this section applies to (a) a claim for damages for breach of a contract of employment or other contract connected with employment, (b) a claim for a sum due under such a contract, and (c) a claim for the recovery of a sum in pursuance of any enactment relating to the terms or performance of such a contract, if the claim is such that a court in England and Wales or Scotland would under the law for the time being in force have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action in respect of the claim.”c. Regulation 30(1)(b) of the Working Time Regulations 1998: “[A worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that his employer] has failed to pay him the whole or any part of any amount due to him under regulation 14(2), 15E, 16(1) or 16A.”[6]Each of these statutory provisions make clear that the legal basis provides for claims brought against the employer or the counterparty to a contract connected with employment only. It is clear from the Statement of Case that the Claimant’s case is that his employer was the First Respondent and not any of the Individual Respondents. Moreover, he does not argue there was any separate contractual relationship between himself and any of the Individual Respondents.[7]It therefore follows that the Claimant’s claims against the Individual Respondents lack any legal basis that would found a claim before this Tribunal. Nothing in the Claimant’s detailed submissions, which I have fully considered, can alter that fundamental state of affairs.[8]Accordingly, I am satisfied that the claims against the Individual Respondents have no reasonable prospects of success and that it is consistent with the overriding objective (Rule 3) to strike those claims out.[9]The claim as against the First Respondent shall proceed to the final hearing already listed for 14 April 2026. Both parties are required to comply with the directions in the Tribunal’s letter of 11 November 2025 in order that the hearing be effective to resolve the Claimant’s claim, and the parties are encouraged to consider whether an amicable resolution of the claim can be reached in advance of that hearing. Approved by:[1]By an application dated 21 March 2026, the Claimant seeks reconsideration of my Judgment sent to the parties on 21 March 2026 by which I struck out the claims against the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents (together, the Individual Respondents).[2]The application was provided (partly) in Turkish. I have relied upon a machine translation by Microsoft Copilot of those parts and am confident that this translation accurately captures the Claimant’s arguments, in particular because it appears very likely to me that AI software has been used in the preparation of the application.[3]Five grounds for reconsideration are identified by the Claimant. I do not consider that any of them lead to there being a reasonable prospect of the Judgment being varied or revoked. GROUND 1: The Judgment failed to address the fundamental logical and legal contradiction in the Respondents’ own case. Once that contradiction is properly resolved, either the company or the individuals must be liable — but both cannot escape liability. GROUND 2: The Judgment proceeded on the assumption that the Individual Respondents acted as representatives of the company; yet the Respondents’ own Response Bundle simultaneously denies any employment relationship between the Claimant and the company. Both positions cannot be true at the same time, and the Judge failed to resolve this contradiction. GROUND 5: The entire premise of the Judge — that Mr Avishek Singh and Mr Ashwini Kumar were acting as authorised representatives of Richmond Food & Supply Ltd — is disproven by the Companies House register, which shows that neither holds any role whatsoever in the company. This is the most powerful ground: without authority to act for the company, they are personally liable on at least three independent legal bases.[4]I will deal with these related grounds together. I considered the strike-out on the basis of the Claimant’s own case, which is that he was employed by the First Respondent and not by any of the Individual Respondents. In any event, I do not accept that the Respondents’ case presents the logical contradiction suggested by the Claimant, because the Respondents say the Claimant never ‘worked’ for them in the sense required by the legislation relied upon for the Claimant’s claims. Further, an individual can act with the authority of a corporate entity without necessarily holding a statutory role that necessitates registration at Companies House. I consider these grounds to be misconceived. GROUND 3: The Judgment failed to consider the individual liability under section 110 of the Equality Act 2010, which provides a freestanding basis for personal liability irrespective of whether the individual is the employer.[5]No complaint under the Equality Act 2010 is identified in the ET1 claim form nor emerges clearly from an objective consideration of the form or its attachment. There is no proper basis upon which it would have been relevant for me to consider any provision of the Equality Act 2010. The fact that the Claimant has, subsequent to my Judgment, applied to amend his claim to add complaints under the Equality Act 2010 does not give basis to change that position. GROUND 4: The Judgment was made on paper without an oral hearing, even though the complexity of the arguments on individual liability required oral submissions for a fair determination. The Claimant was given no opportunity to address the Tribunal orally before three out of four Respondents were removed from the proceedings.[6]Rule 38(2) provides that “A claim, response or reply may not be struck out unless the party advancing it has been given a reasonable opportunity to make representations, either in writing or, if requested by the party, at a hearing.” The Claimant provided a 21-page response to the Individual Respondents’ application to strike-out the claims against them. He did not request a hearing of the strike-out application. Unarguably, in my view, the Claimant had reasonable opportunity to make representations in writing and he did so. Further, I do not accept that the arguments are so complex that an oral hearing of the application was necessary even though neither party requested one – my Judgment explains why the claims against the Individual Respondents are legally misconceived on the Claimant’s own account of the facts.[7]Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 70(2), the Claimant’s application for reconsideration is refused. Approved by: