Case 1307975/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M White (1) Mr J James (2) Ms V Smagurtye (3) Mr M Mohammed (4) Mr Adbi Warsame (5) Ms Lesley Michael (6) v Serco Ltd Open Preliminary Hearing — 2023
- Case reference
- 1307975/2022
- Decision date
- 14 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Boyle Representation
- Venue
- Midlands West - Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M White (1) Mr J James (2) Ms V Smagurtye (3) Mr M Mohammed (4) Mr Adbi Warsame (5) Ms Lesley Michael (6)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an open preliminary hearing in Birmingham on 29 April 2024 before Employment Judge Boyle, the tribunal recorded that, further to the unless order sent to the parties on 14 November 2023, all of the claimants had not complied with that order. The written record identifies the hearing as an open preliminary hearing and notes that claimant (1) and claimant (6) appeared in person, while the other claimants did not attend and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The tribunal decided that all of the claims were dismissed under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment does not set out any merits findings on the underlying claims before reaching that procedural outcome. It therefore records a dismissal of the proceedings for non-compliance with the unless order rather than a substantive determination of liability.
The judgment also records that claimants (1) and (6) applied at the hearing on 30 April 2024 to set aside the dismissal under rule 38(2), and those applications were refused. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify a substantive cause of action; it records that, further to the unless order sent on 14 November 2023, all claimants had not complied and their claims were dismissed under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. Applications by claimants (1) and (6) to set aside that dismissal under rule 38(2) were refused. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 38(2) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.