Mr C Yoong v Randstad Solutions Ltd and others: 3201269/2023 and 3201270/2023

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 3201269/2023, 3201270/2023

Between

Mr C YoongClaimant

Randstad Solutions Ltd and othersRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Jones

In person for claimant

Ms. J. Twomey- Counsel for respondent

Date 20 February 2026

JUDGMENT

[1]

(1) The Claimant was not an employee of the 1st and 2nd Respondent at the relevant time. The complaint of automatic unfair dismissal is therefore dismissed because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine it.

(2) The Claimant was not an employee or worker of the 1st or 2nd Respondent at the relevant time. The complaint of disability discrimination by association cannot proceed against the 1st and/or 2nd Respondents. The complaint is dismissed as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine it.

(3) The complaints against the 3rd and 4th Respondents are dismissed as the 3rd and 4th Respondents were not acting as Agents for the 2nd Respondent at the relevant time.

(4) The Claimant was a worker for the 2nd Respondent, as defined in Section 43K (1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996.

(5) The Claimant can pursue his complaint of detriment for making protected Case No: 3201269/2023 3201270/2023 disclosures against the 2nd Respondent.

(6) There are now no complaints against the 1st, 3rd and 4th Respondents and they are dismissed from these proceedings. Employment Judge Jones Dated: 26 June 2024

[2]Case Numbers: 3201269/2023 & 3201270/2023 1 Mr30/01/2025 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr. C. Yoong Respondent: University of East London Heard at: East London Hearing Centre (in public; by CVP) On: Friday 3 January 2025 Before: Employment Judge Hallen Representation Claimant: In person Respondent: Ms. J. Twomey- Counsel

[4]The Claimant’s applications to have the claim struck out and costs in terms of rule 37(1)(c) and 76 of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 are refused. The claim shall proceed to the hearing listed before a full tribunal on 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 July 2025.

REASONS

[1]This matter was listed before me today to consider a number of matters. The claim had previously been considered by Employment Judge Beyzade on 15 December 2023 and Employment Judge Jones on 17 and 26 June 2024. At those case management hearings, the issues and the parties had been narrowed and directions given for a hearing before a full tribunal on 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 July 2025.

[2]The matters before me related to the Claimant’s application for a strike out of the Respondent’s Response as well as costs on the basis that the Respondent had failed to disclose all documents in its care custody and control relevant to the issues that were defined by Judge Beyzade on 15 December 2023 that related to the Claimant’s public interest disclosure claims which are the only claims that are for determination at the substantive hearing in July 2025. I have sent out orders and directions that were dealt with by me at the preliminary case management hearing separately to the parties. This judgment deals with the strike out and costs applications made by the Claimant only.

[3]At the hearing before me, the Claimant made a very general application for discovery of documents related to his public interest disclosure claim that was not based Case Numbers: 3201269/2023 & 3201270/2023 2 upon any substantive documents that he could detail that the Respondent had failed to disclose that was relevant to the issues under determination. The Claimant when asked specifically by me what documents he could identify that existed that the Respondent failed to disclose was not able to point to any. I asked him whether he had made a specific request for discovery of documents based upon the disclosure of documents already made to him that was relevant to the issues in this claim. He confirmed that he had not done so.

[4]The Respondent for its part confirmed that it has complied with the orders made by the previous judges that had considered this matter and that it was continuing to do so. The Respondent confirmed that it had so far disclosed all documents in its custody care or control that were relevant to the issues. Furthermore, it confirmed that if pending the hearing of this claim in July any further documents came to light that were relevant to the issues, it would continue to comply with its ongoing duty of disclosure to the Claimant. In relation to the Claimants costs claim against the Respondent for failing to disclose all relevant documents, the Respondent resisted this on the basis that the Respondent had not failed to comply with its ongoing duty of disclosure and therefore it could not be argued that the Respondent's conduct at this stage contravened rule 76, (1), (a) to (c). Therefore, no cost should be awarded and the application for costs should be dismissed. Strike out – the law

[5]Rule 37 provides as follows: “(1) At any stage of the proceedings, either on its own initiative or on the application of a party, a Tribunal may strike out all or part of a claim or response on any of the following grounds— … (c) for non-compliance with any of the ET Rules or with an order of the tribunal.”

[6]The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the striking out process requires a two-stage test in HM Prison Service v Dolby

[2003] IRLR 694

, and in Hassan v Tesco Stores Ltd

UKEAT/0098/16

. The first stage involves a finding that one of the specified grounds for striking out has been established; and, if it has, the second stage requires the Tribunal to decide as a matter of discretion whether to strike out the claim. In Hassan Lady Wise stated that the second stage is important as it is ‘a fundamental cross check to avoid the bringing to an end prematurely of a claim that may yet have merit’ (paragraph 19).

[7]Striking out is not automatic and care is needed given the draconian nature. In Hasan the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that relevant factors in the exercise of that discretion that might have weighed heavily included the early stage of the proceedings, the ability to direct that further and better particulars of each claim be specified, and the absence of any application on the part of the respondent for striking out.

[8]The guiding consideration, when deciding whether to strike out for noncompliance with an order, is the overriding objective (Weir Valves and Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage

[2004] ICR 371

) which requires the Tribunal to consider all the circumstances, including 'the magnitude of the default, whether the default is the responsibility of the solicitor or the party, what disruption, unfairness or prejudice has been caused and, still, whether a fair hearing is possible' (see paragraph [17]). The Tribunal must consider the matter objectively and weigh the factors in the balance on an assessment of fairness. A sanction short of strike out may be appropriate.

[9]In relation to the Claimant’s application for a strike out of the Respondent’s Response and costs on the basis that the Respondent had failed to disclose all relevant Case Numbers: 3201269/2023 & 3201270/2023 3 documents in its custody care and control relevant to the public interest disclosure claim, I noted that the previous judges have made orders to the Claimant and the Respondent for disclosure of all relevant documents in their respective custody care and control relevant to the public interest disclosure issues that had been defined by Judge Beyzade on 15 December 2023. The Respondent informed me that it had disclosed all relevant documents to the Claimant pursuant to the orders made by the previous judges and that it has as a part of its continued obligation to disclose relevant documents, disclosed additional documents to the Claimant on 4 December 2024 which had come to light as part of the Respondents preparation of its witness statements.

[10]The Claimant was not able to point me to any evidence that indicated that the Respondent had failed to comply with any orders of the Tribunal with respect to disclosure of documents nor was he able to point to any documents that had not been disclosed that were relevant to the issues in this case. All he was able to do was speculate on what might be missing. Furthermore, he was not able to point to a specific request for the discovery of documents made by him that he alleged were missing nor was he able to give me any reasons as to why those documents were relevant to the issues in the claim. In the absence of this, it was not possible for me to make any reasonable determination of his application.

[11]Therefore, his application for a strikeout of the Respondent’s Response for the asserted failure by the Claimant that the Respondent had failed to comply with the Tribunals directions to disclose all relevant documents was not made out. The Claimant could not show that the Respondent was in breach of the Tribunals’ directions to disclose all relevant documents. It must follow that his application for a strike out should be refused. It must also follow that the Claimant’s application for costs should also be refused because the Claimant could not point to any default on the Respondent’s part to comply with directions by the Respondent. Therefore, the Claimant could not show that Rule 76 (1) (a) to (c) was made out.

[12]To assist him, I informed the Claimant that should he wish to make a written request for specific disclosure of documents that he has good grounds for considering are missing following the Respondent’s disclosure of additional documents made on 4 December 2024 he should do so in writing specifying the documents requested and explaining the relevance of these documents to the issues to be determined giving the Respondent a reasonable opportunity to reply.

[13]Accordingly, the Claimants applications under rules 37 and 76 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 are refused. Employment Judge Hallen Date: 30 January 2025 Case Numbers: 3201269/2023 3201270/2023 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr C Yoong Respondent: University of East London Heard at: London East Hearing Centre (in public) On: 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 February 2026 19 February (in private deliberations) 20 February (for oral judgment) Before: Employment Judge Moor Representation Claimant: in person Respondent: Mrs J Twoomey-Calder, counsel