Mr J Jaiteh v Corps Security (UK) Limited — 2026

This judgment concerned whether Mr J Jaiteh's underlying claim should be struck out following the ineffective Final Hearing listed for 5–7 January 2026, and the respondent's application for costs. The underlying allegations concerned a memo dated 13 March 2023 telling the claimant and other staff to speak only English, a photograph of the claimant allegedly sent to white members of staff, and an alleged instruction to photograph the claimant and other non-white staff. The merits of those allegations were not determined.

The Tribunal accepted that Mr Jaiteh had been unwell before the Final Hearing and had attended medical professionals over the preceding weekend. It found that the delay was not intentional, that illness was not in itself an inexcusable reason for the delay, and that the claim was being actively pursued.

The Tribunal nevertheless found that Mr Jaiteh had conducted the proceedings unreasonably. He could have warned the respondent and Tribunal earlier about his continuing illness and the risk to the hearing, and could have supplied available medical evidence. The Tribunal did not accept that he was too incapacitated to provide an update or evidence, and found that his failure to send later medical evidence or liaise with the Tribunal displayed disregard and disrespect for its directions.

Applying Rule 38 and the structured approach in Bolch v Chipman, the Tribunal found that a fair Final Hearing remained possible. Although further delay could affect witness memories, the disputed factual matters were fairly limited, the case had been prepared for trial, witness statements had been produced, and the claimant reported a good prognosis following expected surgery. The claim was therefore not struck out and remains undetermined on its merits.

The Tribunal made a costs order because of the claimant's unreasonable conduct and the late postponement request. The respondent sought £9,383.29, which the Tribunal considered excessive because attendance had occurred only on the first day. It awarded £4,500 inclusive of VAT, comprising counsel's fee of £4,000 and £500 toward the remaining attendance expenses. This was a costs award payable in connection with the ineffective hearing, not compensation on the underlying claim.