Case 3206208/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Ganiat Lawal v Financial Conduct Authority and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 3206208/2021
- Decision date
- 17 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss Ganiat Lawal
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was an open case management hearing to consider applications to strike out the claims for failure to comply with case management orders. The claimant did not attend and had requested a postponement, saying she had been in hospital since the first week of August 2022. The Tribunal had refused the postponement request unless medical evidence of hospitalisation was provided.
The Tribunal found that the claimant had failed to comply with two orders requiring further and better particulars. The earlier order had required further information after the claims were described as unspecific and difficult to understand. The order of 16 May 2022 set out detailed questions and a deadline of 16 July 2022, but the material provided by the claimant on 11 and 13 July 2022 did not follow the directions and consisted of generalised assertions and personal information that did not address the required points.
Employment Judge Housego struck out the claims for failure to comply with the 16 May 2022 order. The judgment recorded that the claimant could apply for reconsideration if she supplied medical evidence showing that ill health precluded compliance, including evidence of any hospital stay between 16 May 2022 and 31 August 2022. After the decision was announced, an email from the claimant's brother stated that she had been in St Pancras Hospital from 20 July 2022, but the judge did not change the decision and indicated that medical information might assist any reconsideration application.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claims were struck out for failure to comply with the case management order of 16 May 2022. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The respondent's submissions identify direct disability discrimination, indirect disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability and reasonable adjustments issues; the judgment struck out the claims for non-compliance with case management orders, not on the merits. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment struck out the claims for non-compliance with case management orders, not on the merits. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment struck out the claims for non-compliance with case management orders, not on the merits. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The respondent's submissions state that the claimant had not particularised allegations of sexual orientation discrimination; the judgment struck out the claims for non-compliance with case management orders, not on the merits. | Struck out | Sexual orientation | — |
| Victimisation | The respondent's submissions identify a victimisation claim requiring further particularisation; the judgment struck out the claims for non-compliance with case management orders. |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(c) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- overriding objective
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.