Case 2301170/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Kilraine v 1) Henry Fawcett Primary School & Children’s Centre; 2) London Borough of Lambeth; 3) Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Lambeth OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301170/2020
- Decision date
- 5 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing on 5 July 2022, Employment Judge Tsamados dealt first with the claimant's request for a postponement. The claimant did not attend. She had emailed that she could not attend because of medical conditions and, if the hearing proceeded, she withdrew her claim under duress. The tribunal accepted the medical evidence that she had serious impairments, but refused postponement after balancing fairness to both sides, the long history of the case, the lack of any clear prognosis, and the respondents' need for a hearing within a reasonable time.
The tribunal then considered the respondents' strike out application under rule 37(1)(e) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, on the basis that it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing. The claim had been presented on 24 March 2020 and was said to concern race, disability and religion or belief discrimination, detriments for protected disclosures, and monetary claims about wages and other payments. The judge found the claim form contained insufficient particulars, the claimant had not complied with directions for further and better particulars, and the respondents still did not know the case they had to meet or which witnesses they would need.
The judge also took into account the repeated last-minute requests for extensions or postponements, the absence of any realistic indication of when the claimant would be fit to participate, and the fact that earlier medical predictions had not proved reliable. Applying the authorities cited in the reasons, including Teinaz, Andreou, O'Cathail, Phelan, Peixoto and Riley, together with the overriding objective, the tribunal concluded that a fair hearing was no longer possible and struck out the claim. The alternative submission that the claim should be dismissed as withdrawn under duress was rejected as unsafe to treat as an actual withdrawal. The full hearing listed for September 2023 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Struck out as part of the whole claim; no merits determination was made. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out as part of the whole claim; no merits determination was made. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Struck out as part of the whole claim; no merits determination was made. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment refers to detriments in respect of protected disclosures; the claim was struck out without a merits hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to monetary claims in respect of wages and other payments; no separate monetary award was made. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- rule 37(1)(e) ET Rules 2013
- rule 2 overriding objective
- rules 30 and 30A ET Rules 2013
- Teinaz v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Andreou v Lord Chancellor's Department
- O'Cathail v Transport for London
- Phelan v Richardson Rogers Ltd
- Peixoto v British Telecommunications plc
- Riley v Crown Prosecution Service
- Article 6 ECHR
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.