Case 1301200/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Joseph Kuyembeh v Careview Services Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1301200/2018
- Decision date
- 23 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gilroy QC
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Joseph Kuyembeh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Joseph Kuyembeh, a former support worker for Careview Services Limited, brought claims of race discrimination, unfair dismissal, whistleblowing-related detriment and unlawful deductions from wages. The tribunal had previously directed him to provide further and better particulars, a calculation of the sleep-in nights claim, and a properly itemised schedule of loss, but found that those orders were not complied with on time or in full. It also recorded that the four-day final hearing listed for 12 August 2019 was lost because of the continuing procedural defaults.
The tribunal held that the unlawful deductions claim had been in breach of the Unless Order made on 28 August 2018, which required a full calculation of the sums said to be due by 21 September 2018. On that basis, it said the claim was automatically struck out under r.38(1), and noted that any application for relief from sanction was not dealt with in this judgment.
For the remaining claims, the tribunal accepted the respondent’s submission that the claimant had acted in "wanton disregard" of the tribunal’s orders. It found that the claimant’s compliance was late and incomplete, that the medical evidence relied on did not sufficiently explain the defaults, and that there was little confidence that future orders would be obeyed. The tribunal also accepted that delay had caused prejudice because two witnesses had left the business, one potential witness could not be contacted, and a further four-day hearing could not be listed until 23 June 2020. It therefore struck out the race discrimination, unfair dismissal and whistleblowing claims in their entirety under r.37(1).
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the claimant breached the Unless Order dated 28 August 2018 requiring a full calculation of the sums said to be owed for sleep-in nights by 21 September 2018. It recorded that the unlawful deductions claim was automatically struck out under r.38(1), and said any issue of relief from sanction was not decided in this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Pursued as race discrimination. The tribunal struck it out with the other remaining claims under r.37(1) for unreasonable conduct, non-compliance and failure to actively pursue the claim. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim with the other remaining claims under r.37(1) after finding persistent non-compliance and lack of active pursuit. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Pursued as whistleblowing-related detriment. The tribunal struck it out with the other remaining claims under r.37(1) for unreasonable conduct, non-compliance and failure to actively pursue the proceedings. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- r.37(1) strike out
- r.38(1) Unless Orders
- Blockbuster Entertainment Limited v James
- Evans v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Birkett v James
- Rolls Royce v Riddle
- Khan v London Borough of Barnet
- Baber v Royal Bank of Scotland
- Weir Valves & Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage
- Harris v Academies Enterprise Trust
- Uwhibetine v NHS Commission Board England
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.