Mr G Dama v Mr M Parish and others: 3333549/2018 and others
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal and claims relating to holiday pay against Ms McCormack are struck out as Ms McCormack is not the claimant’s employer and they have no reasonable prospect of success.[2]The claimant’s claims relating to holiday pay against Mr Parish are struck out as Mr Parish is not the claimant’s employer and they have no reasonable prospect of success. _____________________________ Employment Judge Skehan Approved: 9 April 2019 Sent to the parties on: 11 April 2019 ............................................................ For the Tribunal Office Case Number: 3333549/2018 3334155/2018 2 Note 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. Case No: 3334155/2018 7.6C Deposit not paid – Judgment - claimant Rule 39 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr G Dama Respondent: Ms M McCormackREASONS
The claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £500 following a preliminary hearing held on 26/03/2019. The Order was sent to the claimant on 11/04/2019. The claimant has failed to pay this deposit. The complaint of direct race discrimination against Ms McCormack as set out above is therefore struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. _____________________________ Regional Employment Judge Byrne Date: 31 July 2019 JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON ....................16.08.19............................................. .................................................................................. FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Case No: 3333549/2018 7.6C Deposit not paid – Judgment - claimant Rule 39 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr G Dama Respondent: Mr M Parish JUDGMENT The claim alleging direct race discrimination arising from sending a letter relating to unauthorised absence dated 28 July 2017 is struck out REASONS The claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £500 following a preliminary hearing held on 26/03/2019. The Order was sent to the claimant on 11/04/2019. The claimant has failed to pay this deposit. The complaint of direct race discrimination against Ms McCormack as set out above is therefore struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. _____________________________ Regional Employment Judge Byrne Date: 31 July 2019 JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON ....................16.08.19................................................ .................................................................................. FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Case No: 3333549/2018 7.6C Deposit not paid – Judgment - claimant Rule 39 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr G Dama Respondent: Mr M Parish JUDGMENT The claim alleging direct race discrimination: On one occasion in June or July 2018, Mr Parish interrupted the claimant during his lunch break and demanded that the claimant process orders and slammed down paperwork, when the claimant told Mr Parish that the claimant was on his lunch break. This action was carried out in front of the claimant’s supervisor. is struck out. REASONS The claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £500 following a preliminary hearing held on 26/03/2019. The Order was sent to the claimant on 11/04/2019. The claimant has failed to pay this deposit. The complaint of direct race discrimination against Ms McCormack as set out above is therefore struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. _____________________________ Regional Employment Judge Byrne Date: 31 July 2019 JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON ..................16.08.19.................................................. .................................................................................. FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Case No: 3333549/2018 7.6C Deposit not paid – Judgment - claimant Rule 39 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr G Dama Respondent: Mr M Parish JUDGMENT The claim of direct race discrimination against Mr Parish described as: At some point in the summer of 2017, Ms McCormack, along with Mr Parish called the claimant to a meeting in an open plan office. Ms McCormack told the claimant that a complaint had been made against him that he smelled of marijuana. The claimant was not told who had made the complaint. Ms McCormack had a big intimidating folder with her and told the claimant that if it was true, the claimant would be immediately dismissed. They told the claimant that he was being watched continually on CCTV. is struck out. REASONS The claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £500 following a preliminary hearing held on 26/03/2019. The Order was sent to the claimant on 11/04/2019.The claimant has failed to pay this deposit. The complaint of direct race discrimination against Mr Parish as set out above is therefore struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. _____________________________ Regional Employment Judge Byrne Date: 31 July 2019 JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON ...............16.08.19..................................................... .................................................................................. FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Case Number:3333017/2018 3333549/2018 3334155/2018 3334699/2018 3335405/2018 ph judgment + cm Nov 1 2014 wip version EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondents Mr G Dama v Mr O Smith(1) Mr M Parish(2) Ms M McCormack(3) Mr K Hodgkinson(4) Ms L Matthews(5) PRELIMINARY HEARING Heard at: Watford On: 17 February 2020 Before: Employment Judge Smail Appearances: For the Claimant: In person For the Respondents: Miss D Grennan, Counsel JUDGMENT The remaining claims against Mr Parish are struck out by reason of failure to comply with Tribunal directions and for non-pursuit. REASONS[1]The claimant brought claims against five individually named respondents. He expressly did not bring claims against his then employer, Howard Tenens Ltd.[2]All claims, except for two against Mr Parish, have been struck out on previous occasions. The two remaining claims related to the matters set out at paragraphs 4.5.2 and 4.5.4 of the record of a Preliminary Hearing held on 26 March 2019. Case Number:3333017/2018 3333549/2018 3334155/2018 3334699/2018 3335405/2018 ph judgment + cm Nov 2 2014 wip version[3]The claimant has not pursued the two remaining claims. He is in breach of Tribunal orders as follows:(a) Further and better particulars due 16/04/19;(b) Disclosure of documents due 14/05/19;(c) A remedy bundle due 14/05/19;(d) Written statements due 25 June 2019.[4]The Tribunal issued a strike out warning on 20 November 2019 requesting a response from the claimant by 16 December 2019. Whilst the claimant purported to make a complaint about the Judge who conducted the Preliminary Hearing, there was no compliance with the case management orders. Accordingly, the case has not progressed. It has not been pursued.[5]Accordingly, I exercise my discretion to strike out the remaining claims.