Mr E Paltarackas v Frederickson International Ltd — 2020

At the preliminary hearing on 24 January 2020, Employment Judge Wright held that the respondent's application succeeded because the claimant had materially failed to comply with the unless order dated 1 July 2019. The order required compliance with the earlier order made after the 5 March 2019 preliminary hearing by 31 July 2019, and the tribunal found that the claimant's later particulars still did not satisfy what had been required. The result was that the whole claim stood dismissed under Rule 38, and the tribunal refused to set aside the order.

The tribunal found that the claimant's particulars lacked the specificity required by the March 2019 order. It noted that individuals were not identified, dates were not given, the indirect discrimination section simply referred back to the direct discrimination section, no provision, criterion or practice was identified, and the protected act or acts were not identified for victimisation. The respondent was entitled to know what case it had to answer, and to know that as early as possible in the proceedings. The tribunal also noted that a 9 December 2013 email referred to an incident on 4 December 2013, but the claimant had still not used that material to particularise the allegation.

In deciding whether it was in the interests of justice to grant relief from sanctions, the tribunal considered the reason for the default, the seriousness of the default, the prejudice to the respondent, and whether a fair trial remained possible. The claimant relied on health issues and said English was not his first language, but the tribunal said there was no up-to-date medical evidence before it. It also found significant prejudice because the allegations were historic, the Tolworth office had closed between May 2018 and February 2019, relevant staff had moved on, and the delay meant the respondent could not preserve evidence or identify witnesses for a fair final hearing.