Case 2213588/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Gachathi v Marks and Spencer plc — 2024
- Case reference
- 2213588/2023
- Decision date
- 14 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Gachathi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing and was not represented. The Tribunal clerk attempted to contact her by telephone four times and received an automatic email response stating that she was not well enough to read and respond to emails. The Tribunal decided to proceed in her absence after considering the available information.
The Tribunal recorded that the claimant had not complied with orders made on 27 February 2024 and 23 May 2024. It found there had been no compliance or attempted partial compliance, including no clarification of the list of issues, no schedule of loss, no disability impact statement, and no medical records. Her position on adding an unfair dismissal complaint also remained unclear.
The Tribunal concluded that the claimant had been given a reasonable opportunity to make representations, that her non-compliance had significantly disrupted the progress of the claim, and that there was no less draconian alternative to strike out. The claim was struck out under rules 37(1)(b), 37(1)(c), and 37(1)(d).
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant brought complaints of discrimination/harassment because of disability. The disability relied on appeared to be depression but had not been clarified. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant brought complaints of discrimination/harassment because of race. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant brought complaints of discrimination/harassment because of sex. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant brought complaints of discrimination/harassment because of sexual orientation. | Struck out | Sexual orientation | — |
| Harassment | The judgment refers to complaints of discrimination/harassment because of sexual orientation, race, disability and sex, but does not set out a finalised list of issues. | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the claimant brought a complaint of victimisation. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 47
- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(b)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(c)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(d)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(2)
- overriding objective
- Weir Valves & Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage [2004] I.C.R. 371
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.