Case 1401872/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Ms R Waiyego v First Greater Western Ltd and 4 others — 2023

Case reference: 1401872/2020
Decision date: 27 October 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge P Cadney Representation
Venue: Bristol

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

6 named

Claimant

Ms R Waiyego

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the preliminary hearing in Bristol on 2 October 2023 before Employment Judge P Cadney, the tribunal dealt with the respondent's strike out application, the claimant's application to strike out the response, the claimant's application to amend her claim to pursue harassment under section 26 Equality Act 2010, disclosure points, and further case management directions. The substantive case remained listed around unfair dismissal and disability discrimination issues previously identified in case management, including direct disability discrimination, victimisation, discrimination arising from disability, and reasonable adjustments.

The tribunal found that the claimant had conducted the litigation unreasonably within rule 37(1)(b) because her repeated assertion that no list of issues had been agreed on 9 December 2022 was not true and had stalled progress. It also referred to her refusal to provide bank details for undisputed notice pay and difficulties around the hard-copy bundle. Applying the authorities it cited on strike out and fair trial, including Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James, Emuemukuro v Croma Vigilant and Smith v Tesco Stores, it held that a fair hearing was still possible and that strike out would be a disproportionate response, so the respondent's strike out application was dismissed.

The claimant's application to strike out the response was also dismissed because the tribunal could not at that stage decide whether the respondent was lying or had failed in disclosure. Her amendment application to add harassment was dismissed because the application was not clearly particularised and it was not clear what factual case she was seeking to advance. The tribunal noted that she had agreed on 9 December 2022 that she was not pursuing harassment, but gave her the benefit of the doubt by not treating that claim as formally withdrawn. It directed that the 19 May 2023 list of issues stand, that any disclosure issues be identified by 3 November 2023, and that the 10-day final hearing be relisted for a date between June and December 2024.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The respondent's application to strike out the claim was dismissed. The tribunal held that a fair trial was still possible and that strike out would be disproportionate. This was an interlocutory ruling and did not determine the underlying claims on the merits.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	The claimant's application to strike out the response was dismissed. The tribunal said the claimant's complaints about the truth of the response and disclosure matters could not be resolved at that stage.	Dismissed	—	—
Harassment	The claimant's application to amend her claim to pursue harassment under section 26 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed as unparticularised and unclear. The tribunal said this was not a merits determination of liability and also noted that it was not treating the harassment claim as formally withdrawn.	Other	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

6 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.