A Store Assistant at an Aldi supermarket who used artificial intelligence to draft his entire unfair dismissal case was ordered to pay some of the company's costs, after he kept fighting a claim the Commission says was doomed from the start.
What the Commission decided
Deputy President Easton found that Sadnan Khan was not eligible to bring an unfair dismissal claim against Aldi because he had not worked long enough before he was dismissed. The decision turns on the date he was told he was being sacked, not the date his employment formally ended, a distinction the Commission says the law makes clear.
Mr Khan was told he was being dismissed on 26 March 2026, just a few days short of completing the minimum period of service the law requires before a claim can be made. He discontinued his application at the hearing once this was put to him directly.
The real story here is what happened next. Aldi applied for an order that Mr Khan pay its costs, relying on a provision that lets the Commission make such an order if a party's unreasonable conduct caused the other side to incur costs it otherwise would not have. The Deputy President agreed, ordering Mr Khan to pay an amount towards Aldi's costs of preparing for and attending the hearing.
What was actually in dispute
Mr Khan's case, and his later arguments defending Aldi's costs application, relied heavily on documents he had generated using AI. His original application contained visible AI drafting notes, including a reference to a
What this means
This case is a reminder that eligibility to bring an unfair dismissal claim depends on meeting the minimum employment period before the dismissal date, and that pursuing a claim after being warned it falls short can expose a worker to a costs order.