Cases2302190/2023

Claimant v London Borough of Southwark

21 August 2025Before Employment Judge Fredericks-BowyerLondon (South)remote video

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalnot determined

This was a preliminary hearing concerning the respondent's application for relief from sanction following the dismissal of their response for non-compliance with an unless order. The merits of the unfair dismissal claim have not yet been determined.

Direct Discrimination(race)not determined

This was a preliminary hearing concerning procedural matters. The substantive race discrimination claim has not yet been heard or determined by the tribunal.

Harassment(race)not determined

This was a preliminary hearing concerning procedural matters. The substantive race harassment claim has not yet been heard or determined by the tribunal.

Victimisation(race)not determined

This was a preliminary hearing concerning procedural matters. The substantive victimisation claim has not yet been heard or determined by the tribunal.

Facts

The claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal, race discrimination, harassment and victimisation following her dismissal as a higher level teaching assistant after 9 years' service. The respondent failed to file an amended response by the deadline, failed to provide comments on the claimant's application to amend, and did not respond to multiple emails from the claimant and tribunal. An unless order was made but was sent out on the afternoon of the compliance deadline, giving the respondent only 3 hours to comply. The response was automatically dismissed. The respondent applied for relief from sanction.

Decision

The tribunal set aside the unless order and granted relief from sanction. The judge found it was not in the interests of justice to subject the respondent to the harshest sanction when the late sending of the unless order meant they had no realistic possibility of compliance. While the respondent's conduct in failing to communicate with the tribunal was well beyond 'discourteous', the default was not deliberate, was not sufficiently serious to warrant dismissal of the response, and a fair trial remained possible.

Practical note

Unless orders should not operate as strike-outs in disguise: where administrative delays in sending an unless order deprive a party of a realistic opportunity to comply, relief from sanction should be granted even where the party's prior conduct in managing the case has been poor.

Legal authorities cited

Thind v Salveson Logistics Ltd UKEAT/487/09/DAWakeman v Boys and Maughan Solicitors and another [2024] EAT 39Minnoch and others v Interserve FM Ltd [2023] EAT 35

Statutes

Rule 38 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013

Case details

Case number
2302190/2023
Decision date
21 August 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Name
London Borough of Southwark
Sector
local government
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
higher level teaching assistant
Service
9 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No