Ms D Njoroge Represented by: did not attend v Respondent — 2020

The claimant did not attend the public preliminary hearing on 16 November 2020, and the tribunal refused an adjournment and proceeded in her absence. The case had been converted from a 12-day merits hearing because the issues had not been defined, disclosure had not been given, medical notes had not been produced, and the claimant had not adequately set out the basis of any disability allegation. The tribunal therefore returned to the pleadings, rather than the respondent's draft list of issues, and applied the authorities it cited on pleading, issue identification and amendment.

The ordinary unfair dismissal claim under section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed because the claimant had been employed from 24 July 2018 until 17 October 2019 and therefore did not have the two years' continuous service required by section 108(1). The tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear that claim. It also recorded that there was no application before it to amend the case to automatic unfair dismissal under sections 103A or 104.

In Appendix 1 the tribunal identified several discrimination allegations as potentially capable of proceeding, but only at a preliminary stage. It listed race discrimination allegations in claim 1 and claim 2, including dismissal, mediation comments, refusal to score an application, grievance handling, refusal to shortlist, and the project coordinator application; it listed sex discrimination and sex harassment allegations concerning Mr Kalim's behaviour; and it noted a disability discrimination allegation based on fibroids, subject to disclosure of GP notes. The claim 3 allegations of breach of contract and failure to pay wages were said to be pleaded but insufficiently particularised, and no monetary award was made at this stage.