Ms Jojo Badjie v Amber Residential Care Homes Ltd — 2021

The claimant presented her ET1 on 24 January 2020, ticking race discrimination and also a further complaint described as harassment, bullying and less favourable treatment. After further information had been sought, Employment Judge Rayner made an unless order on 2 September 2020 requiring an explanation of the non-attendance at the case management hearing, better particulars of the harassment complaint, and confirmation of whether there was a direct discrimination claim about dismissal and on what comparator basis. On 18 November 2020 Employment Judge Gray varied the order and required by 9 December 2020 an amendment application identifying the allegations relied on from the ET1, the legal basis for the complaint, and submissions on the amendment issue; he also recorded that the claimant had withdrawn her race discrimination claim and dismissed it.

The claimant's 8 December 2020 document listed eleven events and referred to a 112-page bundle, but it did not identify which allegations from the ET1 were relied on, did not set out the legal basis beyond a reference to harassment, and did not provide the required submissions on the amendment application. Applying the authorities on material non-compliance with unless orders, the tribunal found that the respondent still could not know the case it had to meet and that there had not been qualitative compliance. The claim was therefore automatically struck out. On the later rule 38(2) application and request for extra time, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had made attempts to comply and was not wilfully disobeying orders, but held that the default remained serious, the case was still insufficiently clear even after discussion at the hearing, and that relief would cause further delay, cost and prejudice. The rule 38(2) application and extension of time were refused, leaving the strikeout in place.