Cases1400547/2024

Claimant v The Co-operative Group

13 May 2025Before Employment Judge LiveseyBristolremote telephone

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(race)struck out

Claim struck out under rule 38(1)(c) and (d) for failure to actively pursue the claim and breach of case management orders. Claimant failed to provide schedule of loss, disclosure, or witness statements and had no contact with respondent or tribunal since October 2024.

Direct Discrimination(race)struck out

Claim struck out under rule 38(1)(c) and (d) for failure to actively pursue the claim and breach of case management orders. The claim related to alleged suspension by warehouse shift manager following clocking offence.

Harassment(race)struck out

Claim struck out under rule 38(1)(c) and (d) for failure to actively pursue the claim and breach of case management orders. Claimant alleged harassment arising from suspension which he claimed harmed his reputation and marriage.

Detrimentstruck out

Detriment claim under s.146 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act relating to trade union activities was struck out under rule 38(1)(c) and (d) for failure to actively pursue the claim and breach of case management orders.

Facts

The claimant, a warehouse employee for The Co-operative Group, brought claims of race discrimination and trade union detriment relating to his suspension by a warehouse shift manager following an alleged clocking offence, which he claimed harmed his reputation and marriage. Following a case management hearing in October 2024 where directions were agreed by consent, the claimant completely disengaged from the litigation process, failing to comply with any case management orders or respond to correspondence from the respondent or tribunal.

Decision

The tribunal struck out all claims under rule 38(1)(c) and (d) for failure to actively pursue the claim and breach of case management orders. The claimant failed to provide a schedule of loss, disclosure, witness statements, or any cooperation in compiling a hearing bundle, and had no contact with the respondent or tribunal since October 2024 despite being copied on all correspondence. The tribunal concluded the claimant had consciously disengaged and it was not appropriate to devote further resources to the claim.

Practical note

Litigants in person who completely disengage from proceedings and fail to comply with any case management orders risk having their claims struck out, even where claims involve serious allegations of discrimination and detriment.

Legal authorities cited

James v Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 684Arrow Nominees v Blackledge [2000] WLR 775004Emuemukoro v Croma Vigilant (Scotland) Ltd UKEAT/0014/20/JOJBharaj v Santander UK plc [2023] EAT 152

Statutes

EqA 2010 s.13Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 r.3Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 r.38(1)(d)Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 r.38(1)(c)TULRCA s.146EqA 2010 s.26

Case details

Case number
1400547/2024
Decision date
13 May 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
retail
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
warehouse employee

Claimant representation

Represented
No