Abass Bello v Gasrec Limited — 2024

The claimant's underlying claim had included direct race discrimination, direct religious belief discrimination, harassment related to religious belief, and unauthorised deduction from wages. This judgment did not determine those substantive claims; it dealt only with the respondent's application for reconsideration of the tribunal's earlier decision sent on 12 August 2024.

The respondent said it had not had a fair opportunity to address three matters: the claimant's evidence that he could not read or write English, the tribunal's indication only in its judgment that it was considering making an order of its own motion, and the claimant's understanding of the importance of providing a witness statement. The tribunal said it had heard submissions from both parties on whether the case should proceed, that the respondent had the opportunity to challenge the claimant's evidence but did not do so, and that the issue of how to proceed had been fully aired in a proportionate way.

The tribunal held that it had power in law to consider adjourning a case on its own initiative and that this was a well-established principle. It found that it had not adjourned the case of its own motion to avoid Rule 30A of the 2013 Rules, but had considered whether striking out was appropriate and concluded that an adjournment with an unless order was the more proportionate response. It also rejected the suggestion that there had been procedural unfairness to the respondent.

On that basis, the application for reconsideration was refused under Rule 70(2) of the 2024 Rules. The tribunal added that the decision would have been the same if determined under the 2013 Rules of Procedure.