Case 2302190/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Moody v London Borough of Southwark — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302190/2023
- Decision date
- 2 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Moody
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned the respondent's application to set aside an unless order and obtain relief from sanction after its response had been dismissed. The tribunal recorded that the claimant advances claims of unfair dismissal, race discrimination, race harassment and victimisation, but those claims were not determined on their merits.
The tribunal found that the unless order had been sent to the parties only on the afternoon of the compliance deadline, leaving the respondent around three hours to comply. The judge considered that this unintentionally operated as a strike out without warning or a realistic opportunity to address the position, and that this was enough to justify setting the unless order aside.
Considering the relevant factors, the tribunal accepted that the respondent's default was not deliberate, that a fair trial remained possible, and that the claim could continue to be case managed. The unless order was set aside, relief from sanction was granted, the response was reinstated and the claim continued defended.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The decision records that this claim is advanced, but it only determines the respondent's application for relief from sanction. The claim continues defended and no merits outcome is decided. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The decision records that this claim is advanced, but it only determines the respondent's application for relief from sanction. The claim continues defended and no merits outcome is decided. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | The decision records that a race harassment claim is advanced, but it only determines the respondent's application for relief from sanction. The claim continues defended and no merits outcome is decided. | Other | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The decision records that this claim is advanced, but it only determines the respondent's application for relief from sanction. The claim continues defended and no merits outcome is decided. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 38(2) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- overriding objective
- Wakeman v Boys and Maughan Solicitors and another [2024] EAT 39
- Minnoch and others v Interserve FM Ltd [2023] EAT 35
- Thind v Salveson Logistics Ltd UKEAT/487/09/DA
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.