Miss T Wilkins v TFS Stores Ltd — 2026

Employment Judge S Moore struck out Miss T Wilkins's complaints against TFS Stores Ltd of detriment for protected disclosure, direct disability discrimination and harassment related to disability. The judgment, approved on 31 July 2026, expressly leaves the unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and discrimination arising from disability claims concerning the dismissal unaffected. Those claims are to proceed to a further hearing.

The tribunal had ordered further particulars on 22 April 2025 and 19 December 2025. Despite extensions and explanations of the information required, the claimant had not set out the complaints sufficiently for the respondent and tribunal to understand them. Information supplied in September 2025 omitted the discrimination and monetary complaints. Further information supplied in February 2026 did not remedy the failures identified in the orders. A strike-out warning issued on 19 June 2026 allowed the claimant until 22 July 2026 to respond or request a hearing.

For the whistleblowing detriment complaints, the claimant had not provided particulars of the alleged detriments. The tribunal recorded no issue with a disclosure in an email to HR on 23 March 2022 reporting an instruction to work after a positive Covid test. Two other alleged disclosures concerned staffing levels, a pregnant worker working alone and holiday owed to staff. The tribunal found insufficient detail of the information disclosed or the statutory category relied upon, and considered those two disclosures had no prospect of being in the public interest. Deposit orders concerning them had been paid. The February 2026 document set out five disclosures but again did not identify which part of s43B(1)(a)–(f) applied.

The five discrimination incidents concerned refusal of booked leave, alleged pressure to return after surgery, the recording of a welfare call, missing or inaccurate welfare records, and requests for attendance or online meetings despite a request for email communication. The claimant had not specified whether each incident was direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability or harassment. The tribunal found that these complaints had no reasonable prospect of success, including because some allegations disclosed no discernible discrimination claim or could not be understood. The last alleged act was in February 2023, while the claim was presented on 4 September 2024. The tribunal found the complaints significantly out of time, with no evidence supporting a just and equitable extension.

On 22 July 2026, the claimant requested another preliminary hearing on health grounds but supplied no medical evidence and did not address the strike-out concerns. The tribunal acknowledged her ill health but found that previous assurances of fitness to comply with orders had not borne out. It had no updated medical information enabling it to conclude that a fair trial would be possible within a reasonable period. Considering the respondent's entitlement to know the case it faced and the balance of prejudice, the tribunal found strike-out appropriate under Rule 38 and consistent with the Rule 3 overriding objective. The judgment records no monetary award and gives no amounts for the deposit orders.