Mr C Kiyimba v G4S Secure Solutions (UK) Ltd and Ward Security Ltd: 2301773/2020
JUDGMENT
The Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that: The claimant’s claim for age discrimination is dismissed on withdrawal. Employment Judge Kelly Signed on: 30 March 2021 Case Number: 2301773/2020 1 of 2 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr C Kiyimba Respondents:(1) G4S Secure Solutions (UK) Ltd(2) Ward Security Ltd PRELIMINARY HEARING Heard at: Croydon (remote hearing in public via CVP) On: 4 August 2021 Before: Judge Brian Doyle Appearances For the claimant: In person For the respondents: (1) Mrs M Pimenta, solicitor (2) Mr T Goodwin, counsel with Ms Z Hakim, solicitor JUDGMENT[1]By consent, the claim against the 2nd respondent only is dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant against the 2nd respondent only.[2]Alternatively, also by consent, the 2nd respondent’s application for a strike out order in respect of the claim against the 2nd respondent only is not resisted by the claimant and succeeds, so that the claim against the 2nd respondent only is struck out.[3]The claim against the 1st respondent only proceeds to final hearing and in accordance with amended case management orders issued separately. __________________________ Judge Brian Doyle Case Number: 2301773/2020 2 of 2 Date: 4 August 2021 Notes Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision.REASONS
[1]By a letter dated 13/12/2021 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or to request a hearing, as to why the claim should not be struck out because• it has not been actively pursued.[2]The claimant responded on the 14/12/2021 and stated that he would give oral evidence at the final hearing. This is not acceptable. The claimant was legally represented in the past and was aware of the need to provide a written witness statement at a preliminary hearing on 30/3/2021 when directions were given. There was a further preliminary hearing on 4/8/2021 when clear directions were given in respect of what was required in respect of written witness statements. It appears the claimant was legally represented until 6/10/2021.[3]The final hearing listed for 8-9/12/2021 was vacated as the claimant had failed to exchange his witness statements as directed and had failed to comply with the Tribunal’s Orders. Case No: 2301773/2020 6.2 Strike out Judgment – claim - rule 37[4]The claimant has had opportunities to comply with the Orders (certainly whilst he was legally represented) and he has failed to do so. The claimant is expected to actively pursue his claim, to cooperate in the preparation for a final hearing and to follow the Orders. As he has failed to do so, the claim is struck out.