Claimant v Triguard Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant withdrew the claim on 31 May 2024, stating he believed the Employment Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear all of his claims and he intended to pursue proceedings in a different court. The claim was dismissed on withdrawal.
Withdrawn by claimant along with all other claims on 31 May 2024. The Tribunal had previously issued a strike out warning as the claimant did not appear to be an employee or worker of the respondent.
Withdrawn by claimant along with all other claims on 31 May 2024. The Tribunal had previously issued a strike out warning due to questions over the claimant's employment status.
A vague reference to disability discrimination was made based on a dust allergy (hidradenitis suppurativa). The claim was never properly particularised and was withdrawn by the claimant on 31 May 2024.
Facts
The claimant, a security officer, worked for the respondent as an independent contractor from February to May 2022. He brought claims of race and disability discrimination and wages claims in November 2022, alleging he was deliberately denied shifts because of his race. The respondent denied he was an employee or worker and said any reduction in shifts was due to legal requirements concerning his immigration status and his dust allergy. The claimant failed to comply with tribunal case management orders, did not produce evidence or cooperate in preparing a bundle, and sought repeated postponements citing ill health. He withdrew the claims five days before the hearing, stating he intended to pursue them in a different forum.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant had acted unreasonably in the conduct of proceedings by failing to comply with tribunal orders, failing to provide evidence despite two years passing, not cooperating with the respondent in preparation, and withdrawing at the last moment citing an intention to bring proceedings elsewhere. Although his initial claim was not unreasonable to bring, his overall conduct justified a preparation time order of £212.50 in favour of the respondent.
Practical note
Even litigants in person must comply with tribunal case management orders and conduct proceedings reasonably; repeated failures to engage, provide evidence, and late withdrawal can result in costs liability even where the claim was not initially unreasonable.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2408676/2022
- Decision date
- 17 January 2025
- Hearing type
- costs
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Triguard Limited
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- No
- Rep type
- in house
Employment details
- Role
- security officer
- Service
- 3 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No