Case 2420018/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Chaara v Chanel Limited HELD AT: Manchester (hybrid by CVP) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2420018/2020
- Decision date
- 29 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Doyle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Chaara
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing on 17 and 18 January 2024 about the respondent's strike-out and related applications in two claims brought by Miss N Chaara against Chanel Limited. During the resumed hearing the claimant also withdrew claims against the second, third and fourth respondents, and those were dismissed upon withdrawal. The tribunal had already held several earlier hearings and repeatedly directed the claimant to provide further particulars and medical evidence so that the issues could be identified and any necessary adjustments assessed.
For claim 1 (2420018/2020), the judge found that the claimant had not complied with the orders of Judge Butler made on 28 October 2021, the later order made by Judge Buzzard, or Judge Doyle's order for medical evidence. Despite extensions, reminders and support from the tribunal and the respondent, the further particulars remained outstanding. The tribunal held that the claim had not been actively pursued, that repeated defaults meant a fair hearing was no longer possible, and that the claim form had been presented out of time so that it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123 Equality Act 2010.
For claim 2 (2203956/2022), the tribunal held that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success and was also out of time under section 123 Equality Act 2010. The respondent's application for a deposit order was not granted because the claim was struck out, and the applications for an unless order, further particulars, a list of issues and additional case management orders were not granted for the same reason. The judgment does not make substantive findings on the merits of the pleaded discrimination and whistleblowing allegations.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim 1 (2420018/2020). The judgment recorded mixed allegations including disability, maternity and race discrimination. It was struck out under Rule 37 for repeated non-compliance with orders for further particulars and medical evidence, failure actively to pursue the claim, the tribunal's conclusion that a fair hearing was no longer possible, and the finding that it was out of time under section 123 Equality Act 2010. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Claim 2 (2203956/2022). The judgment recorded mixed allegations including disability, maternity, race, religion or belief discrimination and a whistleblowing complaint. It was struck out under Rule 37 because the tribunal found no reasonable prospects of success and also found it was out of time under section 123 Equality Act 2010. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Rule 37 ET Rules
- Rule 38 ET Rules
- Rule 39 ET Rules
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Rule 2 overriding objective
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board v Ferguson
- Mechkarov v Citibank NA
- Cox v Adecco and Ors
- Weir Valves & Control (UK) Limited v Armitage
- Evans & Anor v Commissioner of Police of Metropolis
- Smith v Tesco Stores Limited
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.