Ms Muthoni Mwangi & Ors v Geneston Park Lane LLP — 2024

At a video hearing on 1 August 2024, Employment Judge Mensah struck out the claimant’s complaints under case numbers 2200571/2024 and 2200572/2024 under Rule 37(a) on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant did not attend, had not contacted the tribunal to explain her absence, and had not filed an amendment application despite being given time and an opportunity to seek advice after an earlier hearing.

The tribunal recorded that the ET1 had only ticked “other payments”, with additional text saying that the claimant’s line manager had “discriminate[d]” on her and had been “always picking on” her with petty issues. The respondent said the claim form and later narrative did not identify any protected characteristic, type of discrimination, adverse treatment, or causation, and at the previous preliminary hearing on 7 May 2024 Employment Judge Hodgson had noted that the claimant could not identify any specific claims and that the tribunal had identified no discrimination claim.

Taking the claim at its highest, the judge held that it still did not disclose a justiciable claim within the tribunal’s jurisdiction. The judgment states that the claimant did not have the required two years’ service for an unfair dismissal claim, no discrimination claim had been identified, and the further information amounted only to a history of complaints that did not found a claim before the tribunal. The judge said that, even if Rule 37(a) had not applied, the claims would alternatively have been struck out under Rule 37(c) for failure to comply with the earlier order to attend the hearing, and no deposit order needed to be considered.