(sitting alone) Mr Abdelghani Berdi v Servest Group Limited — 2017

The claimant's ET1 alleged race and religion or belief discrimination and also said he was owed holiday pay, arrears of pay and other payments. After a preliminary hearing on 2 December 2016, the tribunal required further and better particulars. At a further hearing on 3 February 2017, Employment Judge Macleod granted an Unless Order requiring detailed particulars of each alleged incident, who was involved, when and where it happened, how each allegation related to race or religion or belief, what comparator was relied on, and how the sums claimed were calculated.

The claimant sent a response on 23 February 2017. The tribunal accepted that he had named some individuals and given a rough timeline, but held that he had not substantially complied with the order. In particular, the judge found that the response did not set out the precise discriminatory or harassing acts alleged, did not explain how the incidents were linked to race or religion or belief, and did not properly particularise the holiday pay or other monetary claims. The claimant said he felt badly treated after complaining to head office and referred to being Arab and Muslim, but the tribunal held that this did not provide the respondent with fair notice of the case to meet. The judge took account of the claimant's lack of legal representation and that English was not his first language, but still found the particulars insufficient.

At the hearing on 2 May 2017, no evidence was led and both parties made submissions. The tribunal held that there had been substantial non-compliance with the Unless Order and that the claim had therefore been automatically dismissed on 24 February 2017 under Rule 38 of the 2013 Rules. The judge noted the claimant appeared to have a genuine sense of grievance, but concluded that the proceedings could not go forward without proper particulars. No merits findings or remedy award were made.