Mr J Ross v Terresens UK Ltd: 2206148/2022
JUDGMENT
The response is struck out.REASONS
[1]By a notice of hearing dated 2 nd August 2024, the Respondent was notified that the Claimant’s application to strike out their response would be determined at an open preliminary hearing on 27th September 2024.[2]The Tribunal gave the respondent an opportunity to make representations and to attend the hearing, as to why the response should not be struck out because[3]The Respondent failed to attend or provide any explanation for their nonattendance today, nor an explanation for their failure to comply with the directions of EJ Nicklin in respect of preparing and exchanging the bundle of documents and witness statement for the final hearing (which had been listed for, but adjourned, on 29th November 2023, albeit due to lack of judicial availability rather than owing to the Respondent’s conduct).[4]The Claimant’s application was made on the basis that:• the respondent had not complied with the Order of the Tribunal dated 10th February 2023 in respect of preparation of the bundle of witness statements• it has not been actively pursued.• it is no longer possible to have a fair hearing of the response, because some 10 months after the original final hearing listing, the Respondent had Case No:2206148/2022 6.4 Strike Out Judgment – response - rule 37 still not finalised the bundle or exchanged statements, and there was no realistic prospect of them doing this.• That the Respondent’s conduct (or omission) in failing to correspond with the Claimant and/or the Tribunal on or after 2nd November 2023 (when the Respondent’s Solicitors came off record) was unreasonable. 2. The respondent has failed to attend or make representations in writing why the response should not be struck out. In the circumstances, and having considered the submissions of the Claimant and the evidence before me, I allowed the Claimant’s application. The response is therefore struck out. 3. The respondent will be entitled to notice of any hearings and decisions of the Tribunal but will only be entitled to participate in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge. Separate directions and a case management order will follow for a hearing where the Tribunal will consider whether the Claimant has established his claims, and if so, what remedy he is entitled to. _____________________________ Employment Judge Bromige Date. 27th September 2024[1]The Claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal is upheld (express not constructive).[2]The Claimant’s claim for direct race discrimination is not upheld.[3]The Claimant’s claim for indirect race discrimination is upheld.[4]The Claimant’s claim for harassment related to race is partially upheld.[5]The Claimant’s claim for wrongful dismissal is upheld.[6]The Claimant’s claim for protected disclosure detriment is dismissed upon withdrawal.[7]The Claimant’s claim for unauthorised deduction from wages is dismissed upon withdrawal. REMEDY JUDGMENT[8]The Claimant is awarded and the Respondent must pay at total amount of £124,012.64.[9]This is comprised of the following figures: Basic Award £1384.62 Case No: 2206148/2022 Loss of earnings £60,409.16 (including 25% ACAS uplift) Injury to feelings £18,750 (including 25% ACAS uplift) Interest on loss of earnings £7,083.59 Interest of injury to feelings £4,401.81 Total amount due (with relevant sums having been grossed up) £124,012.64