Case 2201651/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Nworji v Boots Management Services Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2201651/2021
- Decision date
- 22 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicklin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Nworji
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing, the respondent applied for the only remaining claim, disability discrimination, to be struck out. The claimant did not attend, and the tribunal was satisfied she had due notice and that it was proper to proceed in her absence.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant was in clear breach of earlier case management orders, but decided that immediate strike-out was not warranted. Instead, it made an unless order requiring the claimant to comply fully with the specified earlier case management order by 24 January 2022, failing which the entire claim form would stand struck out without further action by the tribunal.
The tribunal also made case management directions for the claim to proceed if the unless order was complied with, including directions on amended grounds of resistance, disclosure, witness statements, a schedule of remedies, and a final hearing. It ordered the claimant to pay the respondent £500 as a contribution towards the costs of the 10 January 2022 hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The preliminary hearing did not determine liability. The tribunal declined to strike out the only remaining disability discrimination claim at that stage, but made an unless order requiring compliance by 24 January 2022, failing which the entire claim form would stand struck out automatically. | Other | Disability | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.