Case 3314454/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Nualwan Chaowanarabin v Providence Bay Restaurants limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3314454/2022
- Decision date
- 19 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle JUDGMENT
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Nualwan Chaowanarabin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an application under Rule 38(2) to set aside the order dismissing the claimant’s race discrimination claim following non-compliance. The case had first been listed for a private preliminary hearing on 6 June 2023 after the respondent failed to present a response, and was later set for a full hearing before an employment judge sitting alone. When the matter came before Employment Judge Postle on 7 August 2023, there was no Thai interpreter available, so it was relisted for 29 September 2023.
The claimant emailed the tribunal on 15 September 2023 saying she could not attend because she would still be in Thailand for health treatment, which she said should finish by December 2023. The tribunal refused a postponement, noting that the relisted hearing date had previously been fixed in the claimant’s presence and had been convenient to her. At the 29 September hearing, the claimant had not provided evidence of the treatment, when it started, or why it needed to be undertaken in Thailand. The tribunal therefore considered dismissing the claim as no longer actively pursued, and Mr Croghan, speaking on her behalf as a friend, said the treatment was a dental crown but could not explain why it could not have been done in England.
Instead of immediate dismissal, the tribunal made an unless order requiring documentary evidence by 27 October 2023 that the claimant had booked a return flight for 27 September 2023 and medical or dental evidence showing when treatment started, why it was necessary in Thailand, and when it ended. The claimant did not comply with those requirements, providing only confirmation of dental appointments. By notice dated 7 December 2023, the tribunal recorded that the claim for race discrimination had been dismissed under Rule 38 because the unless order had not been fully complied with. In the present judgment dated 5 March 2024, Employment Judge Postle held that the dismissal was correct because the order had been wilfully disobeyed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Dismissed under Rule 38 after the claimant failed to comply fully with the unless order requiring documentary evidence about her return flight and medical/dental treatment; the judgment records that this was not a merits determination. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38(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.