Case 1309071/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Begum v SKP Cleaning and Caring Services Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1309071/2020
- Decision date
- 9 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Choudry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Begum
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 9 August 2022, Employment Judge Choudry, sitting alone, considered the respondent's strike-out application in a case where the claimant had brought claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and arrears of pay. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had been employed as a cleaner from 1 February 2018 until dismissal with effect from 15 May 2020. It also recorded a long procedural history involving orders for medical evidence, an impact statement and further information about the discrimination and pay claims, none of which had been properly complied with.
The claimant told the tribunal that she relied on her daughter to handle correspondence, that she did not fully understand the process, and that she had been unwell, but she did not produce medical evidence to support those assertions. The tribunal found that the discrimination and arrears of pay claims remained unclear, that the claimant had not provided an adequate explanation of the disability issue, and that the respondent was prejudiced because it did not know the case it had to meet. The tribunal also accepted that delay had become substantial and was likely to push any final hearing back to later 2023 or early 2024.
Applying rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 and the authorities it cited, including Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board v Ferguson, De Keyser Ltd v Wilson, Emuemukoro v Croma Vigilant (Scotland) Ltd, Bolch v Chipman, Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James and Weir Valves and Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage, the tribunal concluded that no lesser sanction was appropriate. It held that the claimant's non-compliance was significant and that a fair trial of the disability discrimination and arrears of pay claims was no longer possible, so those claims were struck out under rule 37(b), (c), (d) and (e). The unfair dismissal claim was not struck out and was allowed to proceed to a two-day hearing on the information then available.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Not determined on the merits at this hearing; the tribunal ordered that the claim would proceed to a two-day hearing based on the information provided to date. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out under rule 37(b), (c), (d) and (e) after repeated non-compliance with case management orders; the tribunal found the claim remained unclear and that an adequate disability impact statement had not been provided. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The arrears of pay claim was struck out under rule 37(b), (c), (d) and (e) because the claimant had not complied with orders to clarify the claim and the tribunal considered it unclear. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board v Ferguson
- De Keyser Ltd v Wilson
- Emuemukoro v Croma Vigilant (Scotland) Ltd
- Bolch v Chipman
- Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James
- Weir Valves and Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage
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.