Case 3302807/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Oaka (as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ms D Oaka Deceased) v WKCIC Group — 2023
- Case reference
- 3302807/2020
- Decision date
- 20 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Young Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Oaka (as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ms D Oaka Deceased)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Diane Oaka had been employed by WKCIC Group as an HR Generalist Officer from February 1995 until her employment was terminated on grounds of capacity on 30 November 2018. The claim, presented on 28 February 2020 after early conciliation on 20 and 21 February 2020, was described as alleging failure to communicate from 2016 onwards, discriminatory and/or grievance-related detriment, failures to make reasonable adjustments, lack of consultation over a TUPE transfer, and unfair dismissal. The 9 June 2023 hearing was not a merits hearing; it concerned the respondent's strike-out application and the claimant's application to postpone the listed June 2023 full merits hearing.
On strike out, the tribunal applied rule 37 and the two-stage approach in HM Prison Service v Dolby. It accepted that Mr Oaka, acting as personal representative, had believed Bindmans were still dealing with the case, that they had remained in contact with him until January 2023, and that he did not receive Employment Judge Hanning's strike-out warning. The tribunal found that the failure to provide the ordered Schedule of Loss was explained, at least until January 2023, by that belief and by Mr Oaka's efforts to obtain the financial information needed to complete the schedule. It concluded that he was not shown to have failed actively to pursue the case and dismissed the respondent's strike-out application.
On postponement, the tribunal considered the principles in Teinaz and Andreou. It accepted that the fit notes showed back pain and that Mr Oaka said he had been bed-ridden, but noted that the notes did not say he could not participate in an Employment Tribunal hearing and that he had been able to take part remotely in the preliminary hearing. The tribunal also noted that the respondent was not ready for the 26 to 29 June 2023 hearing because witness statements had not been obtained. Balancing fairness to both sides, it reluctantly granted a postponement of about six months, vacated the listed hearing, and directed that the case be relisted remotely by CVP no earlier than six months later.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment described allegations of discriminatory non-communication and failures to make reasonable adjustments. This was a procedural hearing only; the merits of the discrimination claim were not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Other | The judgment referred to a detriment said to have followed a grievance alleging discrimination. This was not determined on the merits at this hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The judgment referred to an alleged lack of consultation in respect of a TUPE transfer. This was not determined on the merits at this hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment referred to an unfair dismissal claim arising from the alleged lack of communication and other factors. This was not determined on the merits at this hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- rule 37 ET Rules
- HM Prison Service v Dolby two-stage test
- Abegaze / Evans / Birkett v James want of prosecution principle
- Harris v Academies Enterprise Trust repeated non-compliance principle
- rule 29 and rule 30A ET Rules
- Teinaz v London Borough of Wandsworth postponement principle
- Andreou v Lord Chancellor's Department fairness balancing
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.