Mr Gilmour v Optec Group Ltd: 6012553/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s claims for disability and race discrimination, unpaid annual leave, unpaid wages and breach of contract were all dismissed.REASONS
[1]The Claimant brought a claim of disability discrimination, unfair dismissal and unpaid annual, leave, wages and breach of contract. At a preliminary hearing on 2 September 2025 the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and the Claimant was allowed to amend to include a claim of race discrimination.[2]Orders were given on that occasion for the Claimant to provide details of his discrimination claims, a schedule of loss and an impact statement and medical evidence of his disability. These were to be complied with by deadlines in September and October 2025. At that time, the further preliminary hearing today was also notified to the parties.[3]On 10 November 2025, EJ Anstis ordered that today’s hearing be a Public Preliminary Hearing to deal with the issue of disability status as well as case management.[4]The Claimant has not complied with any of the orders set out on the last occasion. More importantly, he did not attend the hearing today. On 12 November 2025 he sent the Tribunal and Respondent an email requesting postponement of the preliminary hearing saying that “there are some outstanding elements to the case and background which I would like more time to gather information on, and I am currently in the middle of multiple projects with my business and can’t afford the time for the hearing”.[5]Ms Driscoll on behalf of the Respondent, said that when the deadline for production of details of the claim and his medical evidence had passed, she had emailed the Claimant pointing this out, but had received no reply.[6]I considered the Claimant’s email under rule 47 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 and considered that, given the Claimant’s nonattendance and his history of non-compliance, as well as his failure to engage with the Respondent’s reminders, his claims should be dismissed.[7]Alternatively, the claims are struck out under rule 38 Tribunal Rules, on the basis that the Claimant had failed to comply with orders of the Tribunal and has not actively pursued his claim. Approved by: