Case 3308128/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Dolmantaite v Nissan Motor (Manufacturing) UK Limited PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 3308128/2023
- Decision date
- 13 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Isabel Manley
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Dolmantaite
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing in which Employment Judge Isabel Manley considered the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's claims. The claimant had worked through an agency for the respondent between November 2021 and 28 March 2023, had referred the matter to ACAS on 4 May 2023, and presented her claim on 16 July 2023. The tribunal noted that the claimant had been ordered to provide a witness statement by 4 November 2024, later given a further opportunity to do so by 31 January 2025, but no witness statement or other substantive compliance was received before the hearing on 7 April 2025.
The tribunal decided to strike out the claims under Rule 38(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 because of repeated non-compliance with tribunal orders. It accepted that the claimant had some mental health difficulties and said she found writing the statement caused panic attacks, but observed that she had been able to write letters to the tribunal and had been able to work. The tribunal considered whether lesser sanctions such as an unless order, costs, or a deposit order would help, and concluded they would not.
In the alternative, the tribunal held that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success because they were out of time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. It found no conduct extending over a period. The last suggested act of direct discrimination was in October 2022 and the last suggested act for the harassment claim was in spring 2022. The tribunal also noted the gap between those dates and the ACAS referral in May 2023, and that the claimant had not provided evidence to support a just and equitable extension of time. All claims were struck out and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The harassment claim related to nationality was struck out for the same procedural non-compliance. The tribunal also found it was out of time; the last alleged act was in spring 2022, and the claimant had not shown any basis for conduct extending over a period or for a just and equitable extension of time. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The direct race discrimination claim was struck out under Rule 38 after the claimant failed to comply with orders to provide a witness statement. The tribunal also held, in the alternative, that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success because it was out of time under section 123 Equality Act 2010 and there was no evidential basis to extend time. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Rule 38(1)(c) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- Rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- Rule 40 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- Weir Valves & Control (UK) Ltd v Armitage [2004] ICR 371
- Anyanwu and another v Southbank Student's Union [2000] ICR 23
- Blockbuster Entertainment v James [2006] IRLR 630
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of time
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.