Claimant v Dnata Catering UK Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out for non-compliance with tribunal order. Claimant failed to identify the protected characteristic relied upon for the harassment claim despite repeated orders and requests, making it impossible to determine if the claim fell within the tribunal's jurisdiction under the Equality Act 2010.
Claim struck out for non-compliance with tribunal order. Claimant failed to identify the protected act relied upon for the victimisation claim. Although claimant later suggested a grievance dated 16 May 2024 was the protected act, this postdated two of the matters complained of (suspension on 30 April 2024 and investigation on 8 May 2024), making the explanation illogical and incomplete.
Facts
The claimant was suspended on 30 April 2024 pending investigation, attended an investigation meeting on 8 May 2024, and a disciplinary hearing initially scheduled for 31 May 2024 but rearranged to 11 June 2024, resulting in a Final Written Warning. Conciliation ended 27 June 2024 and claim filed 6 July 2024. The claimant failed to attend a preliminary hearing on 10 July 2025 where he was ordered to provide further particulars by 5 August 2025, specifically identifying the protected characteristic for his harassment claim and the protected act for his victimisation claim. Despite the order and repeated requests from the respondent, the claimant did not provide the required information, instead arguing that it was contained in disclosed documents and his schedule of loss.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the entire claim under rule 38(2)(c) for non-compliance with the tribunal order. The judge found that the claimant had deliberately chosen not to answer the questions asked, despite repeated explanations of what was required. The failure to identify the protected characteristic for harassment and the protected act for victimisation meant the respondent could not understand the case it had to meet, and it was unclear whether the claims fell within the tribunal's jurisdiction. The judge concluded that no lesser sanction would be effective given the claimant's persistent refusal to accept the need to provide this basic information.
Practical note
Even unrepresented claimants must comply with tribunal orders to provide basic particulars of their claims; failure to identify which protected characteristic is relied upon or what the protected act was, despite repeated opportunities, will result in strike out as it makes a fair hearing impossible and leaves the respondent unable to prepare a defence.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3306451/2024
- Decision date
- 30 November 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 0.375
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No