Mr I Mwase v Computer Forensics Lab Ltd: 3315314/2023 and 3315340/2023
REASONS
[1]The claimant issued proceedings in the Employment Tribunal on 28 and 30 December 2023 and has brought claims of direct race discrimination, harassment related to race and victimisation. In those claim forms the claimant’s makes allegations against various individuals including a Mr Javid. The claimant asked the respondent to provide the contact details of Mr Javid as the claimant wished to add him as a further respondent, however that information was not forthcoming.[2]The claimant made an application to strike out the respondent’s response on 16 June 2025 on the grounds that the respondent has misrepresented to the Tribunal that it does not have the contact details for the person the claimant wanted to add as a second respondent in the proceedings. The application also criticises the respondent for failing to comply with the Tribunal orders.[3]And unless order was made on 29 May 2025 by Employment Judge Young stating that “unless by 12 June 2025 the respondent has sent electronically to the claimant and the Employment Tribunal a written explanation of why have Case Number: 3315314/2023 & 3315340/2023 2 [sic] not provided the contact details of Mr Javid including his postal address, email, mobile phone number to the claimant and the Employment Tribunal by 24 August 2024 and whether they are prepared to provide Mr Javid’s aforementioned detailed and if not why not the response form will stand dismissed without further order.”[4]The respondent replied on 12 June 2025 stating that it did not have knowledge of Mr Javid’s contact details and therefore was unable to provide that information. The respondent stated that Mr Javid had no association with the respondent company and was a relative of the administrator who is no longer employed by the respondent. At today’s hearing the respondent’s representative stated that they did have a telephone number for Mr Javid in 2023 but that was no longer the case.[5]The claimant referred to written submissions and extracts from recordings which I have taken into account. The claimant submits that the respondent has a close relationship with Mr Javid and that Mr Javid was an employee of the respondent organisation at the relevant time. The claimant submits that the Facebook page for Mr Joseph demonstrate that there has been a long-standing relationship between him and Mr Javid and the claimant submits that the respondent is misleading the Tribunal by now suggesting they do not have the contact details for Mr Javid.[6]The respondent made oral submissions and accepted that there had been a failure to comply with the Tribunal orders when the respondent was acting in person. The respondent submits that there is sufficient time for orders to be complied with before the final hearing, which is due to commence on 16 February 2026. The respondent also submits that Mr Javid was not an employee of the respondent organisation and it would not be in keeping with the overriding objective to strike out the response for failings over which they have no control as they no longer have current contact details for Mr Javid’s.The law
[7]I refer to Rule 38(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024: “38. Striking out (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; (c) for non-compliance with any of these Rules or with an order of the Tribunal; (d) that it has not been actively pursued; Case Number: 3315314/2023 & 3315340/2023 3 (e) that the Tribunal considers that it is no longer possible to have a fair hearing in respect of the claim, response or reply (or the part to be struck out).”Conclusions
[8]Applying the relevant law to the facts I find that it is for the parties who is bringing the claim to identify who the claim is to be brought against and to obtain their contact details so that the Tribunal can serve the relevant documents on the proposed respondent. Employment Judge Young acknowledged in the notice of hearing dated 29 July 2025 that the respondent had complied with the unless order and that the reason why today’s hearing has been listed is the claimant is refusing to accept that explanation and appears to want the response to be struck out. The claimant’s submissions that the respondent is being untruthful and is misleading the Tribunal is not supported by the evidence he has relied upon today. At best that evidence demonstrates that Mr Javid was at the respondent’s place of business in 2023, whether that was as an employee or whether that was as a friend or family member, the claimant’s submissions and the documents to not assist with this point. The pleadings must be taken at their highest when considering striking out and the respondent’s case is that Mr Javid was not employed by them.[9]The threshold for establishing that a party has behaved in a scandalous or vexatious manner is very high and I find that the claimant has failed to establish today that the respondent has behaved in either a scandalous or vexatious manner. The unless order states that the respondent had to say whether they were prepared to provide the contact details for Mr Javid which indicate that there was no compulsion on the part of the respondent to provide such information. Therefore I find that the threshold under Rule 38(1)(b) has not been met.[10]The respondent concedes that it has not complied with some of the orders previously made by the Tribunal and therefore the threshold under Rule 38(1)(c) has been met and the question then is whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to strike out the response. The question then is whether or not this Tribunal considers it is still possible for a fair hearing to take place, which I consider below.[11]In respect of the threshold under Rule 38(1)(e), I find that that threshold has not been met because the claimant is not prevented from proceeding with his claims against the respondent even if Mr Javid is not called as a witness or added the respondent. The fact the respondent has failed to provide the contact details for Mr Javid does not mean that a fair hearing is no longer possible. The claims as they stand today are exactly the same as the claims the claimant brought when he issued proceedings and nothing has changed therefore this threshold is not met. The claims are against a limited company and the claimant is not disadvantaged if Mr Javid is not added as a second respondent or if he is not called the witness by the respondent. This is an issue that the claimant can address in cross-examination of the witnesses Case Number: 3315314/2023 & 3315340/2023 4 which are called by the respondent and it is certainly not grounds for finding that a fair hearing is no longer possible. It is for the respondent to decide who it calls as a witness given that the claimant has made allegations involving Mr Javid.[12]The next question to be answered by this Tribunal is whether or not the response should be struck out because the respondent has failed to comply with Tribunal orders. I accept the respondent was acting as a litigant in person at the time of the non-compliance, but that does not excuse their non-compliance with the orders which are set out in plain English and are relatively easy to follow. However, I also accept the respondent’s submission that, with the assistant of their current legal representative, there is sufficient time for the parties to cooperate and get the case ready for the final hearing. In those circumstances I find that it is still possible to have a fair hearing of the claims the claimant has brought against the respondent and, in the circumstances, it is not in keeping with the overriding objective to strike out the response.[13]In all the circumstances the claimant’s application to strike out the response is refused. Approved by: Employment Judge Arullendran 4 November 2025 Reasons sent to the parties on: 10 November 2025 For the Tribunal: Case Numbers: 3315314/2023 & 3315340/2023 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Isifu Mwase Respondent: Computer Forensics Lab Ltd Heard at: Watford Employment Tribunal On: 16/17/18/19/20 February 2026 Before: Employment Judge Alliott Mrs G Bhatt MBE Mr T Poil Representation Claimant: In person Respondent: Mr Alan Williams (solicitor)Conclusions
[1]The claimant was harassed on racial grounds by virtue of the conduct in issue 2.2.1.[2]The claimant was victimised by virtue of the conduct in issues 4.2.4, 4.2.5 and 4.2.6.[3]The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the total sum of £13,280.77, being:(i) £10,000 for injury to feelings;(ii) £2,073.43 interest thereon;(iii) £1,207.34 10% uplift for unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on grievances.[4]The rest of the claimant’s direct race discrimination, harassment on racial grounds and victimisation claims are dismissed.[5]The claimant’s application for an anonymity order is refused. Approved by: