Case 2600565/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Amanda Doughty v CDX Security Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600565/2022
- Decision date
- 22 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Britton
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Amanda Doughty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing on 26 October 2022 before Employment Judge P Britton sitting alone, the respondent applied to strike out the claim for non-compliance with Unless Orders made at a case management hearing on 21 July 2022. Those orders required the claimant to provide, by 22 August 2022, a list of the documents or other materials she intended to rely on, and also to particularise the basis of her unfair dismissal and sex/race discrimination claims.
The judge found that the claimant did not provide the required list and instead continued to disclose documents and screenshots on a piecemeal basis. The judge rejected her explanation that she did not know what to do without solicitors, noting that the requirement had been explained clearly and that she had been able to send numerous emails. The judge concluded that she had failed to comply with the Unless Orders.
For completeness, the judge also said the claimant had not adequately explained how an unfair dismissal claim could be brought given the absence of qualifying service, nor how alleged conduct by a security officer employed by OCS could amount to race or sex discrimination by CDX. He also noted that her attempt at particularisation did not address the reference to another female of Asian ethnicity said to have been involved. The claim was therefore struck out in its entirety. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out for failure to comply with Unless Orders; the judge also noted the claimant had not explained how any exception to the two-year qualifying service requirement would apply. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Struck out for failure to comply with Unless Orders; the judge said the claimant had not adequately particularised how the alleged conduct by a third-party OCS security guard amounted to race discrimination by CDX. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Struck out for failure to comply with Unless Orders; the judge said the claimant had not adequately particularised how the alleged conduct by a third-party OCS security guard amounted to sex discrimination by CDX. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.95 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
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.