Case 3303870/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr XY v London Borough of Brent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303870/2023
- Decision date
- 21 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr XY
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr XY presented claims of race discrimination, victimisation and breach of contract against London Borough of Brent. A final hearing had been listed for 16 June 2025, and the respondent applied in May 2025 to strike the claim out and vacate the hearing because the claimant had not complied with case management orders and was not actively pursuing the case. The claimant did not attend the strike-out hearing on 3 June 2025 and did not contact the tribunal to explain his absence.
Regional Employment Judge Foxwell considered the evidence of non-compliance, including the absence of disclosure, failure to engage in preparation of the bundle, and failure to agree a witness statement exchange date. The respondent had repeatedly chased compliance in correspondence during 2024 and 2025, including emails on 23 July 2024, 23 October 2024, 12 December 2024, 11 February 2025 and 22 April 2025. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had not fully complied with disclosure, had not prepared the case for hearing, and was not actively pursuing the claim.
The tribunal applied Rule 38(1) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 and the approach in Weir Valves and Controls (UK) Limited v Armitage, focusing on the scale of the default, who was responsible, the prejudice caused, whether a fair hearing remained possible, and whether a lesser sanction would be proportionate. The judge held that the case was not ready for final hearing, that there was no realistic prospect of the claimant engaging in time to preserve the hearing date, and that postponement and relisting would not be proportionate given the history of non-engagement and the further cost and delay to the respondent.
The tribunal concluded that the prejudice to the respondent outweighed that to the claimant, and that the claim should be struck out for non-compliance with tribunal orders and because it had not been actively pursued. The hearing listed to commence on 16 June 2025 was vacated. No remedy was awarded because the tribunal did not determine the substantive claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(c) and (d) for non-compliance with tribunal orders and because it was not being actively pursued. No merits decision was made on the race discrimination allegations. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(c) and (d) for non-compliance with tribunal orders and because it was not being actively pursued. No merits decision was made on the victimisation claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(c) and (d) for non-compliance with tribunal orders and because it was not being actively pursued. No merits decision was made on the breach of contract claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 38(1) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Weir Valves and Controls (UK) Limited v Armitage [2004] ICR 371
- Rule 3 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.