Case 3327070/2017 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Unrepresented — 2019
- Case reference
- 3327070/2017
- Decision date
- 1 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Henry
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr D Sutton, Mr R Clifton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented a claim form on 14 August 2017 complaining of race discrimination. At a preliminary hearing on 18 January 2018, the respondent was substituted as the sole respondent, and Employment Judge Henry made case management orders requiring further particulars, a response, disclosure, witness statements and a schedule of loss.
The claimant did not initially comply with the order for further particulars, and a series of Tribunal communications followed. The judgment records confusion arising from the correspondence and listing information, and notes that the respondent repeatedly chased the Tribunal to understand the status of the case. The claimant eventually sent particulars by email on 1 July 2018, which meant he had complied with the later unless order, but the earlier timetable for the respondent's response and evidence had not been properly updated.
At the hearing on 10 September 2018, the respondent did not attend because its principal witness, Mr Yianni, was engaged elsewhere. The Tribunal considered that, in light of the procedural history and the fact that the case was not ready for hearing, the only just course was to adjourn the matter. The case was relisted for three days on 1, 2 and 3 April 2019 at Cambridge Employment Tribunal. No substantive finding on the race discrimination claim and no remedy were recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment did not determine the substantive claim. It records that the claimant had brought a race discrimination complaint, but the hearing was adjourned before any merits finding. | Other | — | — |
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.