Ms. E Azaanooun v RefuAid and 3 others — 2024

Ms E Azaanooun brought a claim against RefuAid and three individual respondents. The claim form ticked race and disability discrimination, but Employment Judge Lumby recorded that the factual and legal basis of the complaints was not clear. At a preliminary hearing on 7 June 2024, and again at a further case management hearing on 10 December 2024, the Claimant did not attend. She was ordered to provide further information, to clarify any amendment application, to update her schedule of loss, and to provide information and medical documents relied on for disability.

The tribunal found that the Claimant did not comply, in full or in part, with any of those orders and did not ask for an extension of time or clarification. A warning was sent on 31 January 2025 that the claims were likely to be struck out if the medical information was not provided. The Claimant emailed on 14 February 2025 and attached a fit note covering 13 to 27 February 2025, but the note did not address her ability to attend the hearing and the tribunal noted there was no medical evidence showing she could not comply with orders between 24 December 2024 and the hearing date.

Applying rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, and referring to Weir Valves and Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage 2004 ICR 371 and the overriding objective, the tribunal considered the magnitude of the non-compliance, responsibility for the default, prejudice to the respondents, whether a fair hearing remained possible, and whether a lesser sanction would be appropriate. It concluded that the non-compliance was significant, the Claimant as a litigant in person was responsible for compliance, the respondents were left without a clear case to meet, and a fair hearing would not be possible if the claim remained in its current state.

The tribunal decided that an Unless Order would not be appropriate because the Claimant had already been warned about the consequences of non-compliance, including in the case management order itself and again on 31 January 2025. The claim was therefore struck out for non-compliance with the Employment Tribunal orders sent to the parties on 24 December 2024. No monetary remedy was awarded because the case did not proceed to determination on the merits.