Mr E Kumordji v Royal Mail Group plc and and 1 other — 2020

The claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing. The tribunal refused a postponement after noting that the claimant had travelled to Ghana for a funeral, that his first postponement request did not say he could not attend, and that he had put himself in a position where the hearing would proceed in his absence if the application was refused.

The tribunal first construed the claim form as raising breach of contract and/or unlawful deduction of wages. It held that it had no jurisdiction to consider breach of contract against Royal Mail Group Plc because the claimant remained employed, and it found no reasonable prospect of success on the wages claim because no specific sums allegedly due and unpaid were identified. It also said the claim against Mr M Kulra failed for want of compliance with section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and because he was not the claimant's employer.

The claimant later said he was instead pursuing direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, victimisation, and bullying or harassment. The tribunal treated this as an attempted amendment but refused it because no protected characteristic was identified, no protected act was identified for victimisation, no provision, criterion or practice was identified for indirect discrimination, and the claimant did not explain why the conduct alleged amounted to harassment under section 26(4) of the Equality Act 2010. It concluded that the case had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the claims under rule 27(1).