Mr G DeSouza v Dnata Catering UK Ltd — 2025

The ET1 was very brief and referred to "Harassment, Bullying, Victimisation, Unlawful suspension". The tribunal treated the live complaints as harassment under s.26 Equality Act 2010 and victimisation under s.27 Equality Act 2010, but the form did not identify a protected characteristic for harassment or the protected act relied on for victimisation. At a preliminary hearing on 10 July 2025, Employment Judge Warren ordered the claimant to provide further and better particulars by 5 August 2025 so that a list of issues could be completed.

The claimant did not comply with that order, and his responses to the respondent's correspondence on 19 August, 2 September and 19 September 2025 were found to be insufficient. He said the missing information was already in disclosure and in his schedule of loss, which claimed £55,300, but the tribunal held that this still did not explain why the complaints fell within the tribunal's jurisdiction. The schedule of loss referred to victimisation in relation to grievances and being treated unfairly afterwards, harassment, constructive suspension, unspecified detrimental treatment, defamation/false allegation and general financial costs, but it still did not identify the protected characteristic for harassment.

Applying rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, Weir Valves and Controls UK Ltd v Armitage, Bharaj v Santander UK Plc, Essombe v Nandos Chickenland Ltd and the overriding objective in r.3(2), Employment Judge George held that the default was substantial and that the claimant and Mr N'Dow had chosen not to answer the questions directed by the tribunal. The final hearing listed for 13 and 14 October 2025 had already been lost because the claim could not be fairly prepared, and the judge concluded that a lesser sanction would not be effective. The claim was struck out under rule 38(2)(c); no merits finding or monetary award was made.