Case 2301760/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Miss Kandice Carr-Miller v Sage UK Limited — 2026

Case reference: 2301760/2024
Decision date: 13 July 2026
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Eoin Fowell

Indexed: 24 July 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss Kandice Carr-Miller

Respondent

Sage UK Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This preliminary judgment did not determine the merits of Miss Carr-Miller’s unfair dismissal or age, disability, race and sex discrimination claims. The proceedings arose from two claim forms submitted on 29 and 30 January 2024. The second claim was subsequently withdrawn and dismissed, while the remaining claims were subject to disputes about amendment and time limits.

Miss Carr-Miller failed to attend a preliminary hearing on 2 March 2026. Employment Judge Fowell did not accept her explanation that compromised email access and problems with her telephone prevented her attendance, rejected the suggestion that Sage (UK) Limited was responsible for hacking her device, and described her account as not credible. The tribunal took account of her non-compliance with orders, the absence of supporting evidence and the resulting inability to hold a fair hearing during the previously allocated August 2026 trial window.

Applying Rule 38 and the proportionality approach in Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James, the tribunal nevertheless refused to strike out the claims. It found that a final hearing could be accommodated from 19 January 2027, that this would allow sufficient preparation time without material prejudice to the respondent, and that the failure to attend, although a serious lapse, did not justify striking out the proceedings. The remaining claims were directed to a preliminary hearing on time-limit issues on 11 August 2026 and, if appropriate, a final hearing commencing on 19 January 2027.

The respondent also sought £12,513.50 in costs arising from the abandoned March hearing. Although the tribunal accepted that the Rule 74 threshold of unreasonable conduct was met, it exercised its discretion against making a costs order, taking account of the exceptional nature of costs awards in the tribunal, the potential effect on the claimant’s ability or willingness to continue the proceedings, the procedural history and her means. The costs application was refused, and no monetary award was made.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The substantive claim was not determined. The respondent’s strike-out application was refused, and the claim was permitted to proceed to further hearings.	Other	—	—
Age discrimination	The substantive claim was not determined. The judgment records that age discrimination was selected on the claim forms; the respondent’s strike-out application was refused.	Other	Age	—
Disability discrimination	The substantive claim was not determined. The judgment records that disability discrimination was selected on the claim forms; the respondent’s strike-out application was refused.	Other	Disability	—
Race discrimination	The substantive claim was not determined. The judgment records that race discrimination was selected on the claim forms; the respondent’s strike-out application was refused.	Other	Race	—
Sex discrimination	The substantive claim was not determined. The judgment records that sex discrimination was selected on the claim forms; the respondent’s strike-out application was refused.	Other	Sex	—

Legal tests applied

7 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.