Ms A M Oliver Masillal v Defence Equipment And Support — 2026

This judgment determined the Respondent's application under Rule 38 to strike out the claim; it did not determine the substantive merits of the discrimination, harassment, victimisation or whistleblowing allegations. The Tribunal considered the claims being pursued to include automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996, whistleblowing detriment, direct race discrimination, harassment related to race and victimisation.

The Tribunal found that the Claimant had persistently failed to provide the focused further information ordered by Employment Judge Midgley. It accepted that the delayed transmission of Employment Judge Gray's order and an earlier direction sent on 24 January 2026 were likely to have caused some confusion, particularly because the Claimant was a litigant in person and English was not her first language. It found, however, that this confusion should not have continued after the Respondent explained the position on 23 March 2026, and that the later cross-referencing document still did not comply with the order.

The Tribunal found that the Claimant's conduct of the proceedings had been unreasonable and vexatious and that she had deliberately failed to comply with the order. It was not satisfied that she had failed actively to pursue the claim. Despite extensive efforts by the Tribunal and the Respondent over approximately 16 months, the discrimination complaints remained insufficiently clear, and the Tribunal found that a fair trial was no longer possible for the parts of the claim dependent on the ordered further information. It considered the expenditure of time and money, the demands of other litigants and the Tribunal's finite resources, and concluded that striking out those parts was proportionate.

The Tribunal therefore struck out the remainder of the claim but allowed the automatic unfair dismissal complaint under s.103A ERA 1996 to proceed. It found that three alleged protected disclosures had been clearly identified and that there was a factual dispute about the reason for dismissal, with the burden on the Claimant to show that the sole or principal reason was a protected disclosure. The claim could proceed provided that the additional protected disclosure requiring clarification was removed from the list of issues. No monetary remedy was determined or awarded in this judgment.