Mr Z Khan v Bristol Street Investments Ltd, T/a Bristol Street Motors:1303041/2024
JUDGMENT
The claimant’s claim was dismissed immediately after 4 pm on 20 December 2024.REASONS
[1]As well as being a Judgment, this is written notice to the parties in accordance with rule 38(1) of the 2013 Rules of Procedure that the claimant’s claim was dismissed because he failed, on time or at all, to comply with the unless order that was emailed to him at 10:21 hrs on 17 December 2024 (the “Order”).[2]In accordance with rule 38(2), the claimant may apply to the Tribunal in writing, within 14 days of the date that this notice is sent to him, to have the Order set aside on the basis that it is in the interests of justice to do so.[3]I [Employment Judge Camp] refer to the Order, which included the reasons why I was making it.[4]There was a telephone preliminary hearing in the Midlands (West) region on 3 October 2024 at which I made an order (“my order”) that by 24 October 2024 the claimant provide information and documentation explaining the basis upon which he was alleging that the treatment to which his entire claim related – dismissal – was because of his race. I made that order because: the claimant said nothing about this in his claim form; he had been unable coherently to explain it to me at the hearing; if he had nothing to add to that incoherent explanation then, in my provisional view, his claim had no reasonable prospects of success; I was listing a further preliminary hearing to deal with strike-out / deposit order on the basis of lack of reasonable prospects of success; and that for the respondent and the Tribunal fully and properly to assess prospects of success and therefore assess whether it would be worthwhile for that hearing to go ahead, it was necessary for the claimant to provide the information and documentation.[5]The claimant has not complied with my order, by 24 October 2024 or at all. To the best of my knowledge, neither the Tribunal nor the respondent has heard from him since the hearing on 3 October 2024, despite him being written to by the respondent and the Tribunal several times. 1 of 2 Case Number: 1303041/2024[6]On 3 December 2024, further to the respondent’s application to strike out of 7 November 2024, the Tribunal wrote to the claimant explaining that I was proposing to strike out his claim on the basis that he had not complied with my order and was not actively pursuing his claim. He had 7 days to object to the proposal. After he failed to object, the respondent’s solicitors wrote on 13 December 2024 again asking for the claim to be struck out. Having carefully considered the matter, I decided not to do so but instead to make an ‘unless’ order under rule 38. This effectively gave the claimant one last chance. I made it a last chance mainly on the basis that I had exhausted the less severe options and that if the claimant did not take it, it would be reasonable to assume: that he was unwilling or unable to comply with my order; that if there were a proper evidential basis for his allegation that his dismissal was discriminatory, he would have complied and provided it.[7]The claimant did not take that last chance. It was at least the third chance the Tribunal has given him to comply with my order and at least his fifth opportunity to put forward some proper evidential basis for his allegation that his dismissal was discriminatory (the first and second opportunities being in the claim form and at the hearing on 3 October 2024). In addition, he has not, as already mentioned, responded to correspondence from the respondent’s solicitors since the hearing either.[8]The Order stated that “Unless BY 4 PM ON 20 DECEMBER 2024 the claimant” provided the information and documentation to the Tribunal and the respondent’s representatives, his claim would be dismissed without further order. It follows that his claim was dismissed immediately after that time on that date.