Mr O Famuwagun v HAP Recruitment Limited and 3 others — 2026

Employment Judge Anstis struck out all of Mr O Famuwagun’s claims against HAP Recruitment Limited, Angela Adams, Kieran Porter and Field Vision Bars Limited following the hearing on 17 August 2026. This was the seventh preliminary hearing listed in proceedings involving some allegations dating back to 2022.

Some discrimination allegations depended on identifying the alleged discriminator. The claimant had described male managers but later referred to a photograph of a woman. He could not explain that change at the hearing. Identification mattered because it was unclear whether the person concerned worked for HAP Recruitment or Field Vision Bars. The tribunal found that the relevant allegations had no reasonable prospect of success and struck them out. This disposed of all claims against Field Vision Bars.

For the remaining claims, the tribunal considered the claimant’s failure to provide witness statements by the revised deadline of 22 July 2026. The judge explained that failure to provide a statement did not automatically require strike-out. Here, however, the respondents disputed the basic facts of the alleged detriments, and the judge could not see how the claimant could prove them without oral evidence. The respondents’ representative said that the respondent accepted applying the practice alleged as indirect discrimination, but the judge treated that as a different matter.

The tribunal acknowledged the claimant’s ongoing, very difficult personal circumstances. His principal explanation was that he could not and would not produce a witness statement while data subject access requests remained outstanding. The judge explained that the tribunal had no role in resolving those requests, while deficiencies in tribunal disclosure were matters it could address. The claimant had framed his explanation specifically around data subject access requests.

The judge found that failing or refusing to provide witness statements because of matters outside the tribunal process amounted to unreasonable conduct. Without witness evidence, the claimant could not establish the basis of his remaining claims, including breach of contract and holiday pay. Those claims were also struck out. The judgment recorded no monetary award.