In Khan v Laker Mechanical Limited, the ET could make no criticism of K for bringing and persisting in a claim for unfair dismissal, which he won. But his race discrimination case was always unlikely to succeed and which the ET described as a “lawyer-derived complaint and an afterthought which was never owned by the claimant”. Although K was contending originally that his redundancy was a sham, “a well know lawyer’s cliché”, this was not made out in any way. In his evidence K did not impute any racial motivation or bias to any of the decision-makers in this case. The ET stated: “We do not know what the claimant was thinking when he put his name to that claim, and we never shall”. K had acted unreasonably in pursuing a lawyer-derived claim which he himself did not believe and was ordered to pay £3,000 costs.

This update provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links to access full details. If no link is provided, contact us for more information.  Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, SM&B cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.