Case 3315314/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr I Mwase v Computer Forensics Lab Ltd — 2025

Case reference: 3315314/2023
Decision date: 7 October 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Arullendran REPRESENTATION
Venue: Watford

Indexed: 17 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr I Mwase

Respondent

Computer Forensics Lab Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant applied to strike out the respondent's response, contending that the respondent had misrepresented whether it held contact details for Mr Javid and had failed to comply with tribunal orders. The respondent accepted earlier non-compliance with some orders but said it did not have current contact details for Mr Javid and that there remained enough time to prepare for the listed final hearing.

The Tribunal found that the evidence relied on by the claimant did not support his submission that the respondent was being untruthful or misleading the Tribunal. It held that the thresholds under Rule 38(1)(b) and Rule 38(1)(e) were not met, while the threshold under Rule 38(1)(c) was met because of admitted non-compliance with some orders.

The Tribunal declined to exercise its discretion to strike out the response. It found that a fair hearing remained possible and that striking out the response would not be in keeping with the overriding objective.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	The judgment records a claim of direct race discrimination, but this decision only refused the claimant's application to strike out the response; the merits of the claim were not determined.	Other	Race	—
Harassment	The judgment records a claim of harassment related to race, but this decision only refused the claimant's application to strike out the response; the merits of the claim were not determined.	Other	Race	—
Victimisation	The judgment records a claim of victimisation, but this decision only refused the claimant's application to strike out the response; the merits of the claim were not determined.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.