Did not appear and was not represented For the v Represented himself — 2024

The claimant did not attend the hearing and was not represented. The tribunal refused a late postponement application, noting that the hearing had been fixed since 10 October 2023, that no proper explanation was given for the claimant's 'other commitments', and that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying postponement. The judge proceeded to consider the claim on the papers and the parties' emails and witness statements.

The claim form pleaded race discrimination. The tribunal recorded that Acas early conciliation took place between 25 and 27 June 2023 and that the claim was issued on 26 July 2023, but found there was no evidence from the claimant addressing the delay between the alleged events, which were said to have occurred during her placement work between September 2017 and April 2018, and the presentation of the claim more than five years later. Applying the section 123 Equality Act 2010 time limit and the just and equitable discretion, together with the factors identified in Keeble and Adedeji, the tribunal concluded it was inherently unlikely that time would be extended.

On the merits, the claimant's pleaded allegations were described as vague and unparticularised. The tribunal held that complaints about rented accommodation, a car, and an accountant were not matters within the tribunal's jurisdiction. In relation to the complaint about lack of training, the respondent said neither he nor the recruitment agency he managed had any obligation to provide training to pharmacists, that the claimant was treated no differently from others, and that he was not qualified to train her in relation to Clozapine. The tribunal accepted that explanation on the information before it and held that the allegation had no reasonable prospect of success.

The claimant's allegation that the respondent took advantage of her because she was an EEA pharmacist from Portugal, and that he had 'tagged' her with the label 'EEA', was also found to be wholly unparticularised. Because the claimant did not attend, the tribunal said it was not possible to explore that allegation further. It therefore struck out the whole race discrimination claim because it had no reasonable prospect of success on time limits and on the merits. No findings were made on employment status because the tribunal considered that unnecessary once those issues had been decided.