Case 3310645/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss O Motajo-Adebayo v Precious Homes Limited RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 3310645/2023
- Decision date
- 5 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Richard Wood
- Venue
- In private CVP
- Panel members
- Mrs J Costley, Mrs F Betts
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss O Motajo-Adebayo
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on 5 July 2024 before Employment Judge Richard Wood sitting with Mrs J Costley and Mrs F Betts. The claimant applied under rule 37(1)(c) to strike out the respondent's response because of non-compliance with orders made by Employment Judge Davidson on 12 March 2024. The hearing was also listed primarily to decide whether the claimant had a disability at the relevant time and whether the respondent had knowledge of any disability, but no merits findings on those issues were made in this decision.
The tribunal recorded that compliance with the March directions had not occurred until 3 July 2024 for a hearing on 5 July 2024. The claimant had not seen the bundle or the respondent's witness statement until a day or so before the hearing, and the claimant had not provided a witness statement. The tribunal accepted that there was likely to be some prejudice to the claimant if the hearing proceeded as listed.
However, the tribunal held that strike-out would be a severe sanction and disproportionate in the circumstances. It noted that this was the first such failure by the respondent, that the respondent had a viable defence which would be lost if the response were struck out, and that the prejudice to the claimant could be addressed by a lesser sanction such as an adjournment. The tribunal also noted that the claimant was to some extent culpable because she had not provided a witness statement. The application was dismissed and the matter was adjourned for a further preliminary hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claimant's application under rule 37(1)(c) to strike out the respondent's response for non-compliance with orders made on 12 March 2024; this was an interlocutory application, not a merits determination of the underlying claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 37(1)(c) ET Rules of Procedure 2013
- overriding objective
- fairly and justly
- proportionality of sanction
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.