Mr Omenu Wembi OKANDJU v TSS Total Support Services — 2024

The claimant, Mr Omenu Wembi Okandju, worked as a cleaner for TSS Total Support Services between 21 April 2021 and 19 December 2022. He had brought two ET1 claims, which were consolidated. After earlier case management hearings, Employment Judge Clarke made an unless order on 17 March 2024 requiring a single, clear factual document addressing a long list of specific matters, including whether the unfair dismissal claim was being withdrawn, whether there was an automatically unfair dismissal claim based on a protected disclosure, what public interest reason applied, how any conduct related to race, whether any act was alleged to be discrimination or harassment, the sums claimed, notice period, accrued holiday, and the legal basis for any health and safety complaint.

At the public preliminary hearing on 18 June 2024, the claimant attended by video link with a Lingala interpreter. An adjournment application based on illness was refused. Employment Judge Atkins accepted that the claimant was in discomfort and had evidence of medication, but concluded that the hearing could proceed on the first issue, which was compliance with the unless order.

The tribunal held that the document titled "Detailing of Material Facts" did not amount to material compliance. It was not in the required format, but more importantly it failed to answer the key questions set by the unless order. The judge identified, by way of example, that it did not say whether the unfair dismissal claim was being withdrawn, did not identify any protected disclosure, did not state any public interest basis, did not identify any act of discrimination or harassment, did not explain how the case related to race, did not set out the sums claimed or how they were calculated, did not state the notice period or accrued holiday, and did not identify the legal basis for any health and safety claim.

Applying the authorities cited, including Minnoch v Interserve FM Ltd, Johnson v Oldham MBC and Royal Bank of Scotland v Abraham, and having regard to the overriding objective, the judge found there had been no material compliance and declined to set aside the unless order. The consolidated claims were therefore struck out under rule 38. No merits determination and no remedy award were made.