Case 3310862/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Musah v v Chief Constable of Surrey Police — 2024
- Case reference
- 3310862/2023
- Decision date
- 26 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Musah v
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints described in the claim form as discrimination because of race and religion/belief, concerning her dismissal from the respondent's police force. The tribunal recorded that the complaints could not be fully understood from the claim form and that further information was needed about the alleged acts, who did them, when they happened, and why they were said to be because of race and religion/belief.
The claimant did not comply with tribunal orders requiring further information by 2 April 2024 and 28 June 2024, and had still not provided it by the later date she had requested. She also did not attend the public preliminary hearing on 2 August 2024, did not respond to attempts to contact her, and did not ask for a postponement.
The tribunal found that grounds for strike out were established under rules 37(1)(c) and 37(1)(d), considered the overriding objective and whether a lesser sanction would be appropriate, and concluded that the claim should be struck out. The judge also stated that the same decision would have been reached under rule 47 for non-attendance at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The claimant ticked race discrimination on the claim form. The tribunal struck out the claim under rules 37(1)(c) and 37(1)(d) for non-compliance with tribunal orders and not actively pursuing the claim; the merits were not determined. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The claimant ticked religion/belief discrimination on the claim form. The tribunal struck out the claim under rules 37(1)(c) and 37(1)(d) for non-compliance with tribunal orders and not actively pursuing the claim; the merits were not determined. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 rule 37(1)(c)
- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 rule 37(1)(d)
- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 rule 47
- overriding objective in rule 2
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.