In person For the v Respondent — 2026

Mr C Waya was employed by Cambridge Students’ Union as Disabled Students’ Officer under a fixed-term contract that terminated in July 2025. Although due to start on 7 July 2024, he began on 3 September 2024 after obtaining the approvals required for his intermission and immigration position. The Respondent withheld remuneration for July and August because he performed no duties during those months, but later voluntarily paid 50% of the disputed sum.

The proceedings included complaints of unfair dismissal, age, race and disability discrimination, victimisation, whistleblowing detriment, unlawful deduction from wages and other payments. Complaints against four individual respondents were withdrawn on the basis that the union would accept liability for any discriminatory acts found against those individuals. The judgment described separate allegations of blackmail and intimidation as outside the Tribunal's statutory remit.

At a case-management hearing, the Claimant was ordered to provide an impact statement and medical evidence, further information about the whistleblowing and victimisation complaints, the names of alleged race comparators, and details of an allegation that the Respondent had briefed third parties against him. He did not provide the ordered information by either the original or extended deadline and did not bring evidence of his means to the public preliminary hearing. Consequently, the complaints remained vague and unparticularised, and the Tribunal could not assess whether they had reasonable prospects of success.

The Tribunal took account of the Claimant's disability and his evidence that a painful flare-up had left him bedridden. It found that there was no medical evidence showing that the flare-up had prevented compliance and noted that he had attended some lectures and seminars, sent emails concerning the proceedings, and prepared written submissions with assistance. It was not satisfied that his failure to comply was primarily attributable to his disability. The Claimant also could not give an assurance of prompt future compliance and said that his PhD commitments could prevent him from pursuing the case until January 2027.

The Tribunal found that continued delay prejudiced the Respondent through legal costs, management time and increasing difficulty obtaining evidence. It considered an unless order but concluded that a lesser sanction was inappropriate given the further delay contemplated by the Claimant. Finding that a fair trial consistent with the overriding objective was no longer possible, it struck out the entire claim under rules 38(1)(b) and 38(1)(c) because the Claimant had failed to comply with a Tribunal order and the way the proceedings had been conducted was unreasonable. No substantive claim was determined on its merits.

No compensation or other monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment. The Respondent indicated that it intended to seek costs, and a separate costs hearing was listed for 17 November 2026; no costs decision was made.