Lovemore Ngoni Madzinga v Faith Health Care Agency — 2026

At the hearing on 16 June 2026, Employment Judge Liz Ord dismissed Lovemore Ngoni Madzinga's unfair dismissal complaint against Faith Health Care Agency upon withdrawal. The operative judgment also dismisses disability discrimination upon withdrawal. However, the reasons identify race discrimination as the complaint brought and withdrawn on 9 May 2026. The judgment does not resolve this difference.

The tribunal refused the respondent's application under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 to strike out the remaining claims, which concerned wrongful dismissal and unauthorised deductions from wages. Although the claimant initially failed to comply with case management orders, he complied with the tribunal's order of 7 May by submitting his schedule of loss on 16 May and attended the hearing to defend his case. The judge held that striking out for non-compliance or failure to pursue the case would not be fair and just.

The alternative ground of no reasonable prospects of success concerned a December 2025 journey involving a young person in the respondent's care. It took three hours rather than the usual 45 minutes, which the respondent said raised serious safeguarding issues warranting summary dismissal. The claimant gave sworn evidence about bad weather, unfamiliar roads and a wrong turning onto the M25. He said the young person's mother authorised a coffee stop, the accompanying care worker undertook to report the delay, and he had received no training or opportunity to explain his position. Taking his case at its highest, the judge concluded that he had an arguable case and refused to strike it out. These were procedural findings, with the merits remaining for trial.

The tribunal also refused an unless order requiring disclosure within seven days. The disclosure orders had been stayed on 7 May, so the claimant had no ongoing obligation to disclose documents; the proposed order would not accord with the overriding objective. Separate case management orders would progress the case to trial. A possible amendment to add holiday pay was not before the tribunal. No monetary award was recorded.