Claimant v Computer Forensics Lab Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
This preliminary hearing addressed a strike-out application by the claimant, not the substantive merits of the discrimination claim. The tribunal refused the claimant's application to strike out the respondent's response, finding that a fair hearing is still possible. The merits of the race discrimination claim remain to be determined at the final hearing scheduled for February 2026.
This preliminary hearing addressed a strike-out application by the claimant, not the substantive merits of the harassment claim. The tribunal refused the claimant's application to strike out the respondent's response. The harassment claim related to race remains to be determined at the final hearing scheduled for February 2026.
This preliminary hearing addressed a strike-out application by the claimant, not the substantive merits of the victimisation claim. The tribunal refused the claimant's application to strike out the respondent's response. The victimisation claim remains to be determined at the final hearing scheduled for February 2026.
Facts
The claimant brought race discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims against Computer Forensics Lab Ltd in December 2023. The claimant sought to add a Mr Javid as a second respondent and requested his contact details from the respondent. When the respondent stated it did not have current contact details for Mr Javid, who was not an employee but a relative of a former administrator, the claimant applied to strike out the respondent's response for alleged misrepresentation and non-compliance with tribunal orders. An unless order had been made in May 2025 requiring the respondent to explain why Mr Javid's contact details had not been provided.
Decision
The tribunal refused the claimant's application to strike out the respondent's response. Employment Judge Arullendran found that the respondent had not behaved in a scandalous or vexatious manner, that the failure to provide Mr Javid's contact details did not prevent a fair hearing, and that it remained the claimant's responsibility to identify and obtain contact details for proposed respondents. Although the respondent had failed to comply with some tribunal orders, there was sufficient time before the final hearing in February 2026 to prepare the case properly, and striking out would not be consistent with the overriding objective.
Practical note
A respondent's failure to provide contact details for a non-employee third party whom the claimant wishes to add as a respondent will not justify striking out the response where a fair hearing remains possible and it is the claimant's responsibility to identify and serve proposed additional respondents.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3315314/2023
- Decision date
- 4 November 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No