Case 2300019/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Shagol Jamil v Compass Group UK & Ireland Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 2300019/2024
- Decision date
- 6 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eoin Fowell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Shagol Jamil
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Shagol Jamil's claim was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure because it had not been actively pursued and she had failed to comply with Tribunal directions. The judgment records that she worked as a catering assistant at a school where Compass Group UK & Ireland Limited provided contract catering services. An investigation found that her manager had committed sexual harassment, following which he was disciplined and dismissed in April 2023. Miss Jamil remained off sick during 2023 and presented her claim on 3 January 2024.
Miss Jamil did not attend the preliminary hearing on 6 November 2024, although Miss Bell appeared as her lay representative. She was directed to provide further information specifying what had happened and when, but did not do so. After a further preliminary hearing on 24 February 2025, she was given another opportunity to comply and directions were made for the exchange of evidence. The Tribunal recorded that nothing had been received from her since then, that there had been no response to the respondent's strike-out application of 22 June 2026, and that she did not attend the hearing on 6 July 2026.
The Tribunal considered whether to relist the case and issue further directions but found nothing to suggest that Miss Jamil would use another opportunity to prepare for a hearing. It concluded that strike-out was the only proportionate response to the lack of engagement and that a fair trial was no longer possible in the time allocated. The merits of the harassment claim were not determined. No application for costs was made against Miss Jamil, and no monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The judgment records that the underlying matter involved sexual harassment but does not set out the pleaded allegations in detail. The entire claim was struck out without determination on its merits. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.