Ms B Chiedozie v London Borough of Ealing and Ms L Hills-Babb: 3302616/2023
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 3302616/2023
Between
Ms Brianna ChiedozieClaimant(1) London Borough of Ealing (2) Ms Lindsey Hills-BabbRespondent
Before
Regional Employment Judge FoxwellNo appearance for claimantMs Gir (instructed by Solicitor) for respondentDate 13 November 2024
JUDGMENT
The claim is struck out under Rules 37(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure 2013 because the claimant has not complied with and order of the Tribunal and the claim has not been actively pursued.
REASONS
[1]The claimant’s claim arises from events in 2022. Her representatives, Sublime Consultants, presented the claim to the Tribunal on 19 March 2023, the claimant having gone through early conciliation between 9 January and 20 February 2023. She made complaints of unfair dismissal, race, and disability discrimination.[2]The respondents filed a response denying the claims on the merits and not admitting that the claimant was disabled within the definition in the Equality Act 2010 (EQA).[3]On 21 July 2023 Employment Judge Robin Lewis made case management orders for the claimant to provide an impact statement and medical disclosure to establish that she was disabled within the statutory definition. The parties were also given notice of a case management hearing which was listed for 6 September 2023. This hearing was subsequently postponed by Employment Judge Graham on the claimant’s application as she was said to be out of the country and her representative unwell. It was relisted for 8 November 2023. PHCM Order (NEW August 2020) 1 of 3 August 2020[4]The relisted case management hearing went ahead on 8 November 2023 by telephone before Employment Judge Alliott. The claimant’s representative, Mr Ikeogu attended on her behalf. Judge Alliott identified the issues in the claim and made case management orders. He also listed a final hearing to take place in person at Watford Employment Tribunal on 19 to 21 August 2024.[5]It is clear from the terms of Judge Alliott’s Order, which was sent to the parties on 31 December 2023, that the claimant had not complied with Judge Lewis’s order for medical disclosure and Judge Alliott directed that this information be provided by 13 December 2023. He also ordered the claimant to send a schedule of loss to the respondent by the same date. He made orders for the parties to exchange lists of documents by 29 April 2024, agree a file of documents (“the bundle”) by 10 June 2024 and exchange witness statements by 8 July 2024. At paragraph 12.1 of his orders he said that these and their compliance dates had been explained to the parties in the hearing and that they were to be adhered to even if the Tribunal’s written record of the hearing was not received until after any of the dates had passed.[6]The claimant sent some medical information and an impact statement to the respondent by 13 December 2023 as ordered. This was followed by a schedule of loss which the respondent received on 20 December 2023. To this extent therefore the claimant complied with Judge Alliott’s orders, although the schedule of loss was slightly late.[7]On 30 April 2024 the respondents sent their list of documents to the claimant’s representative. The claimant did not send hers. The respondents’ solicitors chased this by letters dated 7 and 14 May 2024 to the claimant’s representative but there was no response. The respondents wrote to the Tribunal on 21 and 29 May 2024 informing it of the claimant’s non-compliance and in the second letter included an application to strike out the claim. This correspondence was referred to me and I directed the Tribunal’s administration to send a letter to the claimant warning her that her claim may be struck out for non-compliance with orders or because it was not actively pursued. This was sent on 11 July 2024 and the claimant was given until 25 July 2025 to respond in writing or to request a hearing. The reference to 2025 was a typographical error but this meant that the letter had to be reissued once the mistake was drawn to the Tribunal’s attention by the respondents’ solicitors. The revised strike out warning letter was sent to the claimant at her home address and to her representative on 6 August 2024 with a compliance date of 12 August 2024, which was 7 days before the full merits hearing was scheduled to start.[8]The claimant responded to the strike-out warning by email dated 12 August 2024 timed at 18.41. She requested a hearing to object to the proposal to strike out. She did not offer any explanation for her failure to comply with the Tribunal’s orders. In light of this I vacated the final hearing as it was not ready to proceed and directed that today’s hearing be listed in person at Watford Employment Tribunal to consider the strike out application. The Tribunal sent notice of this hearing to the claimant’s representative and to the respondent on 11 September 2024. PHCM Order (NEW August 2020) 2 of 3 August 2020[9]I note for the sake of completeness that none of the parties complied with Judge Alliott’s orders for the preparation of a bundle or the exchange of witness statements; these steps are generally contingent upon disclosure which the respondents had provided but the claimant did not, so I do not criticise the respondents for this.[10]The claimant has not attended today’s hearing. The start time was put back from 10.00 am to 11.00 am yesterday at my instruction because I had a conflicting judicial commitment. I waited a further 15 minutes from the already delayed start time before beginning the hearing in case the claimant or her representative were simply running late. I also asked the clerk to telephone the number we had on file for the claimant but he told me that this went straight to voicemail when he did so.[11]At the commencement of the hearing Ms Gir told me that the respondents had sent a copy of the bundle and index for this hearing to the claimant’s home address by tracked delivery and it had not been returned. She said that these documents had also been emailed to the claimant’s representative without any response. I am satisfied that the claimant is aware of this hearing or, at the very least, ought to be given that she requested it.[12]I am satisfied and find that the claimant has not complied with the Tribunal’s order to disclose documents relevant to her claim and that she is not actively pursuing her claim. I have therefore struck out the claim under rules 37(1)(c) and (d). It would be disproportionate and unjust to the respondents to permit it to proceed any further. Regional Employment Judge Foxwell 13 November 202412/12/2024 For the Tribunal: N Gotecha Recording and Transcription Please note that if a Tribunal hearing has been recorded you may request a transcript of the recording, for which a charge may be payable. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings, and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here: https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/ PHCM Order (NEW August 2020) 3 of 3 August 2020