Case 2303076/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Turay v Teleperformance limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2303076/2023
- Decision date
- 7 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Liz Ord
- Venue
- Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Turay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningA case management order of 1 February 2024 required disclosure by 5 June 2024, but the claimant did not comply. The respondent reported difficulty preparing the bundle because the claimant was not engaging, and on 25 September 2024 the tribunal made an unless order requiring the claimant to confirm whether she intended to pursue the claim and to send relevant documents by 9 October 2024, failing which the claims would stand dismissed automatically.
The claimant later wrote on 10 November 2024 and 20 November 2024 saying she wished to continue and was gathering documents, but no documents had been provided by the time of the further hearing on 7 January 2025. At that hearing she said she had ADHD, that there had been a shortage of medication, and that she had been overwhelmed by the process, but she provided no medical evidence and gave no details. The respondent said it had not been told of any medical issues and that the case could not be ready for the listed hearing dates.
Employment Judge Liz Ord found that the claimant had made little effort to engage with the process and had delayed significantly in contacting both the tribunal and the respondent. The judge noted that the claimant had not made either side aware of any difficulties attributable to ADHD and had not provided medical evidence. Relief from sanction was refused because relisting the trial would have caused prejudice, including fading witness memories and additional cost, and because the claimant had not given robust reasons to justify relief. The claims remained dismissed in their entirety and the full merits hearing listed for 27 and 28 February 2025 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Dismissed after the claimant failed to comply with the unless order and the tribunal refused relief against sanction. The merits of the claim were not determined. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed after the claimant failed to comply with the unless order and the tribunal refused relief against sanction. The merits of the claim were not determined. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed after the claimant failed to comply with the unless order and the tribunal refused relief against sanction. The merits of the claim were not determined. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.