(1) Mrs I Lami (2) Mr F Lami (3) Dr E Lami (4) Mr A Lami v Tapri Limited and 3 others — 2026

Employment Judge Edmonds determined procedural applications arising from alleged non-compliance with earlier disclosure orders. The tribunal did not adjudicate the underlying employment claims and expressly made no findings about what had occurred between the parties, those matters being reserved for the final hearing.

Although the respondents had disclosed 220 pages, the tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that relevant documents necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings were missing. It found the explanation that documents supplied to the police on a USB stick were no longer held to be most unsatisfactory, and held that confidentiality was not a valid basis for refusing disclosure. Deficiencies in the bundle prepared for this hearing supported the conclusion that the respondents had not disclosed all relevant material ordered. The tribunal concluded that the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted in relation to disclosure was unreasonable and that the respondents had failed to comply with tribunal orders; it noted that the fourth respondent was not responsible for earlier non-compliance because it had not then been a party.

The tribunal nevertheless held that a fair trial remained possible because the proceedings were still at an early stage, the final hearing was not due until the following year, and general disclosure was scheduled for September 2026. It therefore refused to strike out the responses or debar the respondents from parts of their defence. Applying the Overriding Objective, it instead granted an Unless Order binding all four respondents and requiring specified disclosure indexes and a search summary by 18 September 2026. No monetary remedy was determined.