Mrs I Stancu v The Recruitment Group Ltd and Diam UK Ltd: 2601789/2024 and 2601946/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2601789/2024, 2601946/2024

Between

Mrs I StancuClaimant

The Recruitment Group Ltd and Diam UK LtdRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Hutchinson

No appearance for claimant

Date 29 January 2026

JUDGMENT

The

REASONS

[1]The Claimant has made two claims in respect of her engagement by R1 as an agency worker working at the premises of R2 during the period 26 January 2024 to 21 June 2024.

[2]The claims are as follows:2.1 Claim number 2601789/2024 was made by the Claimant on 24 September 2024 and was made against the second Respondent. In that claim she claimed unfair dismissal, race discrimination, whistleblowing and breach of contract.

2.2 The second claim is under case number 2601946/2024 and is made against R1 and was made on 31 October 2024. The Claimant again claimed unfair dismissal, race discrimination, whistleblowing detriment and breach of contract.

[3]On 16 October 2025 I consolidated the claims because the claims were almost identical and relate to the same facts and legal issues. I decided that it was in accordance with the overriding objective for the two cases to be heard together because it would be an efficient use of Tribunal hearing time and would reduce the costs of the parties. It would also avoid any issue of double remedy or inconsistent judgments. A Further Preliminary Hearing

[4]I ordered that today’s hearing would take place to determine the following matters:4.1 To deal with an amendment application in respect of the Claimant’s claim of race discrimination. She wished to complain that the termination of her engagement by Diam UK was an act of race discrimination.

4.2 I would then go on to consider whether the claims of race discrimination should be struck out on the basis they have no reasonable prospect of success.

4.3 I would also consider whether the claim of breach of contract in respect of notice should be struck out on the same basis i.e. that it had no reasonable prospect of success.

[5]At that hearing I expressed concern to the Claimant about her behaviour and how she was conducting the proceedings.

[6]I noted that at a previous hearing (on 20 June 2025) my colleague Employment Judge Brown said that the Claimant’s conduct of the proceedings was demonstrating unreasonableness and a lack of focus on what she had been ordered to do. She also tried to mislead my colleague when she said that she had not breached the orders of another Employment Judge, Judge Broughton when she clearly had.

[7]I noted from the file that there was an unnecessarily large amount of correspondence received by the Tribunal and by the other parties in respect of this case and I warned the Claimant to desist from her unreasonable and vexatious behaviour and told her that if it continued I would consider striking out her case at the next hearing unless she mended her ways.

[8]I said that unless she had any queries in respect of the Preliminary Hearing on 16 October there was no need to make further contact with the Tribunal.

[9]The record at the Preliminary Hearing was sent to the parties on 29 November 2025.

[10]On 8, 9 and 10 December the Claimant wrote again to the Tribunal seeking a “Suspension of the Preliminary Hearing listed for 12 December 2025”.

[11]She based the request on her right to a fair procedure and the right to a fair trial and adequate time to prepare. She also complained about the lateness with which she had received the case management orders.

[12]She also stated that she would not participate in any hearing until “The legal review process is completed”.

[13]My colleague Employment Judge Heap reviewed the correspondence and said that it appeared the Claimant was making an application for a postponement. Judge Heap refused that request.

[14]She noted the Claimant had not set out what decision she was seeking reconsideration of and put to her that she could make any application for reconsideration at the outset of the Preliminary Hearing.

[15]She warned the Claimant that if she did not attend the Preliminary Hearing unless her application was granted that the Judge might decide to dismiss the claim for nonattendance or proceed in her absence.

[16]Employment Judge Heap said that the Claimant must stop making repeated applications for the same thing before the initial application had been determined and reminded the Claimant about the comments made by myself and recorded at paragraph 16 of my case management orders.

[17]The Tribunal received a letter late on 11 December 2025 in which the claimant made clear that she would not be attending the hearing today and objected it to it going ahead. The Claimant is clearly aware of the situation as described by my colleague Employment Judge Heap and she must accept the consequences of her nonattendance.

[18]The Claimant did not attend to the hearing today and I decided that it was in accordance with the overriding objective to proceed with the hearing in her absence. The Application to Amend her Claim

[19]The Claimant had presented her claim forms on 24 September 2024 and 31 October 2024 raising several claims which were for the most part unparticularised.

[20]At the first Case Management Preliminary Hearing on 10 March conducted by my colleague Employment Judge Smith he listed the matter for a Preliminary Hearing on 30 June 2025. That was to consider whether the Claimant should be granted permission to amend her claim to include a claim of direct race discrimination in relation to the termination of her engagement by the second Respondent.

[21]The Preliminary Hearing would also consider whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claims of unfair dismissal and breach of contract and whether the whistleblowing detriment claim had any reasonable prospect of success.

[22]At that next Preliminary Hearing before my colleague Employment Judge Welch on 30 June 2025 the Claimant withdrew her claims for unfair dismissal, breach of contracts and whistleblowing detriment which left the claims of direct race discrimination. The Claimant told the Judge that she had presented additional documents with her ET1 claim which had included the details of her direct race discrimination claim. This was untrue. Unfortunately, Employment Judge Welch had not been able to check the position and agreed to postpone the hearing to today’s date.

[23]In the meantime, in respect of the claims against the first Respondent there had been a Preliminary Hearing on 20 June 2025 when my colleague Employment Judge Brown postponed that hearing to 16 October 2025. The Claimant had applied for a postponement of that hearing prior to it commencing saying that she was not available when she clearly was. She also said that she had not had time to prepare for that hearing when clearly, she had.

[24]At that hearing Employment Judge Brown had cause to warn the Claimant about her conduct. Despite many denials by her she had not complied with a case management order made by Employment Judge Broughton. At paragraph 17 of the case management summary Judge Brown commented about the Claimant’s conduct of the proceedings and demonstrating unreasonableness of lack of focus on what she had been ordered to do.

[25]In respect of her application to amend Miss Akers reminded me of the guiding principles in the case of Selkent Bus Company Limited (trading as Stagecoach) v Moore

[1996] IRLR 661

. There are the three factors referred to in that case that I need to consider:25.1 The nature of the amendment.

25.2 The applicability of time limits.

25.3 The timing and manner of the application.

[26]Although these factors need to be considered the core of the test is a balance of injustice and hardship.

[27]The nature of the amendment. The allegation that she suffered discrimination on grounds of her race at the time of the termination of her engagement is an entirely new one which could have been made at the time that she presented her original claim.

[28]There is no explanation as to why the claim was not brought at that time.

[29]The Claimant’s engagement with the second Respondent came to an end on the 21 June 2024 and she presented her claim to the Tribunal in September 2024 and now raises a new allegation which is well out of time without any explanation as to why.

[30]At the Open Preliminary Hearing in June 2025 the Claimant had begun to make her application to amend and in doing so suggested that the amendment being sought had been provided in documents that that been presented at the same time as her ET1 claim form.

[31]Her ET1 form was in the preliminary bundle that was before the Tribunal and had been presented to the Claimant prior to the hearing. At no time during the hearing did the Claimant allege that there were any additional pages presented with her ET1. There were no additional documents attached to the ET1.

[32]As the Claimant’s ET1 claim form had been presented by post and Employment Judge Welch did not have the Tribunal file to hand consideration of the Claimant’s application to amend could not be finalised and Judge Welch had to relist the matter again to consider this point. I am satisfied that the claimant was seeking to mislead Employment Judge Welch in saying that she had provided additional documents with her ET1.

[33]Since that hearing the Claimant has not provided any further documentation despite indicating her intention to make the application at the first Preliminary Hearing with Employment Judge Smith in March 2025 and the Claimant has refused to attend the hearing today to make her application.

[34]In any event, any allegation that she suffered race discrimination from the termination of her engagement has no prospect of success. She was one of 69 people who were removed from this assignment between 21 June 2024 and 28 June 2024. She was removed from the assignment because the assignment came to an end and not for any other reason.

[35]The application, therefore, to amend her claim is, therefore, refused. Strike Out in respect of the other claims of Race Discrimination and Breach of Contract

[36]Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure provides that: “(1) The Tribunal may, on its own initiative or on the application of a party, strike out all or part of a claim, response or reply on any of the following grounds—(a) that it is scandalous or vexatious or has no reasonable prospect of success;

(b) that the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted by or on behalf of the claimant or the respondent (as the case may be) has been scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious”.

[37]I have been referred to several cases namely:  Anyanwu v Southbank Students Union and others

[2001] ICR 391

 Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust

[2007] ICR 1126

 Van Rensburg v Royal Borough of Kingston-Upon-Thames & Others

UKEAT/0096/07

 Chandhok v Tirkey

UKEAT/0190/14/KN

[38]In this case the allegations raised by the Claimant are those considered by Employment Judge Smith at the hearing in March 2025.

[39]The Claimant described her nationality and race as Romanian.

[40]She complained that the Respondent unfairly allocated work to her and on an occasion in the first two weeks of May 2024 told her that she did not need training.

[41]The Claimant had raised a grievance on 4 July 2024 alleging amongst other things that she had been asked to assist her colleagues with assembling operations on a shelf. She had taken umbrage at the request, that she felt her colleagues that she had been asked to assist could do the work themselves and that she had other tasks to complete. In her grievance she did not say that she was being asked to assist her colleagues because of her race. She did not say that she had been unfairly allocated work on grounds of her race, and she did not complain that she had been told that she did not need training.

[42]That complaint was investigated at the time and there was no evidence that the Claimant had been assigned an excessive workload compared to her peers and there was not suggestion that any treatment was because of her race even if she had established that she had been treated unfairly.

[43]In respect of being told that she did not need training it is noted that when she raised her grievance she did complain about being given insufficient training which was investigated. Again, there was no mention in the grievance that this had anything to do with her race, and it wasn’t until the first Case Management Preliminary Hearing that the Claimant mentioned race discrimination.

[44]I appreciate that claims of discrimination are fact sensitive and generally should not be struck out unless there is good cause to do so. I am satisfied that this is the situation in this case.

[45]The claims do not have any reasonable prospect of success.

[46]In respect of the breach of contract claim. This relates to a claim for notice pay. The claimant was entitled to one week’s notice which is the notice that she was provided with and no further details been provided by the claimant as to why she says that she has not been paid this money. It has no reasonable prospects of success.

[47]A further concern related to the Claimant’s behaviour. Although I decided that the Claimant’s claim of race discrimination and breach of contract had no prospect of success it is also clear to me that the Claimant has behaved in a vexatious and unreasonable way in her conduct of these proceedings. In particular:

[1]She has repeatedly refused to attend hearings and made unfounded and scandalous allegations that she is not ready for hearing or is not available when she is.

[2]She has made applications to set aside decisions made by the Tribunal which are no prospect of success and have been made unreasonably.

[3]She has been dishonest to the Tribunal and has sought to mislead my colleagues Employment Judge Smith, Employment Judge Welch and Employment Judge Brown and myself in respect of these proceedings.

[4]This is the fifth preliminary hearing of a case which has no merit at all, and it is high time that these proceedings were ended. The Tribunal and the other parties to the proceedings should not be put to any further time and expense because of the Claimant’s behaviour. 48. For all these reasons the Claimant’s claims are struck out. Approved By