Case 2300345/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. Z Sadriyeva v RPS Group Limited and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 2300345/2018
- Decision date
- 7 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sage Representation
- Venue
- London South Croydon
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms. Z Sadriyeva
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the 7 December 2020 hearing, the tribunal considered the Respondent's application to strike out the case under rule 37(1)(b) and (c) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. It found that the Claimant had repeatedly tried to record tribunal hearings, including covert recording, and had not given the unequivocal undertaking ordered by Employment Judge Harrington that she would attend the next hearing without recording it.
The tribunal also found repeated, unsubstantiated accusations by the Claimant against judges, tribunal staff, and the Respondent's staff and representatives. Referring to the meaning of 'scandalous' in Bennett v London Borough of Southwark, the tribunal concluded that the Claimant's conduct was unreasonable and scandalous, that she had shown a flagrant disregard for tribunal orders, and that there was a real concern she would not comply with future orders. It decided there could be no fair hearing and that strike out was the only appropriate sanction. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The published listing identified age discrimination as one of the jurisdiction codes. The written judgment struck out the claims collectively under rule 37(1)(b) and (c) and did not distinguish this claim separately from the sex discrimination claim. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | The published listing identified sex discrimination as one of the jurisdiction codes. The written judgment struck out the claims collectively under rule 37(1)(b) and (c) and did not distinguish this claim separately from the age discrimination claim. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, rule 37(1)(b) and (c)
- Bennett v London Borough of Southwark [2002] EWCA Civ 223
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.