Discrimination claims struck out after failure to provide clear particulars
A former employee's race and religion discrimination claims were struck out after she failed to provide a properly constructed amendment despite a tribunal order. Her solicitor's last-minute postponement request was refused.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #race-discrimination
- #religion-or-belief-discrimination
- #strike-out
- #failure-to-comply-with-order
- #preliminary-hearing
Key facts
- The claimant's discrimination claims were struck out because they had no reasonable prospects of success.
- The claimant failed to provide a properly constructed application to amend her claim despite a tribunal order.
- The claimant's solicitor did not attend the hearing and requested a postponement at the last minute, which was refused.
- The tribunal found that the claimant's application to amend did not clearly set out the basis for discrimination claims.
- The remaining claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, redundancy, holiday pay, and gift money were ordered to be particularised.
Timeline
-
Claim received
The Employment Tribunal received the claim form from the claimant.
-
First preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Warren held a case management hearing and ordered the claimant to file a properly constructed application to amend by 14 October 2023.
-
Application to amend filed
The claimant filed an application to amend her claim, including a request to correct her first name and provide further particulars of discrimination.
-
Late postponement request
The claimant's solicitor emailed the tribunal stating the claimant was abroad and requesting a postponement, which was refused.
-
Second preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Laidler heard the matter in the claimant's absence, refused the amendment (except name correction), struck out discrimination claims, and ordered further particulars for remaining claims.
-
Judgment sent to parties
The judgment and reasons were sent to the parties.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to allow the claimant to amend her claim to add further particulars of discrimination, and whether the discrimination claims should be struck out for lack of reasonable prospects due to inadequate particularisation.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the amendment (except for a name correction) and struck out all discrimination claims on the grounds that they had no reasonable prospects of success. The remaining claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, redundancy, holiday pay, and gift money were ordered to be particularised.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are ordered by a tribunal to provide a properly constructed amendment, make sure it clearly sets out each allegation, what was said or done, by whom, where, and when.
- Failing to attend a hearing or making a last-minute postponement request without good reason can lead to the hearing proceeding in your absence.
- Tribunals will not trawl through handwritten notes or text messages to find the basis of a discrimination claim – it must be set out clearly in the application.
- Having legal representation does not guarantee compliance with tribunal orders; the responsibility ultimately lies with you as the claimant.
A case of missed opportunities
This case shows how a failure to follow tribunal directions can derail a discrimination claim. The former employee had ticked the boxes for race and religion or belief discrimination on her claim form, but the particulars did not explain how she was treated less favourably because of those protected characteristics. At a first preliminary hearing, the tribunal gave her solicitor a clear order: file a properly constructed application to amend by 14 October 2023, setting out each allegation with specifics.
What was filed on 13 October fell short. Instead of a clear statement, the tribunal received a typewritten version of the original particulars, handwritten notes, and text message exchanges. The judge noted that nowhere in the documentation was the basis for the discrimination claims set out clearly. The claimant's solicitor also made a last-minute postponement request the day before the hearing, saying the claimant was abroad and counsel was unavailable. The request was refused, and the hearing proceeded in the claimant's absence.
What could have been done differently
The tribunal had given the claimant a clear opportunity to put her discrimination claims in order. A properly constructed amendment would have set out each alleged act, who did it, when, where, and how it linked to race or religion. Instead, the tribunal was left to piece together handwritten notes – something it made clear was not its job. The solicitor's failure to attend the hearing or provide a satisfactory explanation further weakened the claimant's position.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that tribunals expect claimants to comply with case management orders. Discrimination claims require clear particularisation from the outset, or at least by the deadline set by the judge. If you are representing yourself or using a solicitor, make sure the application is structured and specific. A tribunal will not fill in the gaps for you.
Similar cases
Former employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of two years' service
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Kings College London was struck out because they did not have the required two years' service. Their discrimination claims were dismissed after a hearing.
Site Manager with 8 months' service loses unfair dismissal claim
A site manager who was dismissed after just eight months had his unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of qualifying service. His race discrimination claims were allowed to proceed but subject to a £100 deposit order.
Race and religion discrimination claims struck out as out of time and lacking merit
A tribunal struck out a former technician's race and religion discrimination claims as out of time and without reasonable prospects. A deposit order was made for a constructive unfair dismissal claim.
Race discrimination and wage claim dismissed as out of time: no extension granted
A former employee's claims for race discrimination and unlawful deduction of wages were dismissed because they were brought too late. The tribunal also refused a reconsideration application.