In person For the v Respondent — 2025

The tribunal dealt with the matter as an open preliminary hearing listed to consider whether the claimant's race discrimination claim should be struck out and/or whether a deposit order should be made. The claimant attended the hearing by CVP but did not return after an adjournment for the decision, so the judge gave written reasons in his absence.

The claim form, presented on 2 June 2024, identified race discrimination as the only claim, but the tribunal found that the particulars in section 8.2 contained only interview-process detail and did not explain how any race discrimination complaint arose. The respondent requested further information, and the tribunal had ordered the claimant to confirm how he would describe his race and to provide further particulars. The claimant did not provide the requested information in a way that clarified the pleaded case.

The tribunal noted that the claimant later referred to a telephone call on 16 April 2024 and said he felt disrespected and discriminated against because two Africans were said to be in the room called Peter, but the tribunal found that this material still did not make it clear how there had been less favourable treatment on grounds of race. The judge also recorded that there had been extensive discussion at the earlier case management hearing about unfair dismissal, but the claimant did not have the qualifying service for such a claim and did not make a formal application to amend.

Applying Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 and taking account of the overriding objective, the tribunal concluded that it still did not have sufficient information about the basis of any race discrimination claim and that the respondent was entitled to know the case it had to meet. The claim was therefore struck out and would proceed no further. The tribunal did not deal with the deposit application because the claimant had not returned and had provided no information about his financial circumstances.