Don't mess with the Employment Tribunal!
This Claimant will probably be looking at a substantial Costs Order against her
A recent case unfolded at the Employment Tribunals, capturing attention due to its unique nature. This case, involving Ms. Forzana Khanom as the claimant and the prestigious law firm Mishcon de Reya LLP as the respondent, was not just about the legal arguments presented but also about the adherence to the procedural norms that underpin the justice system.
Ms. Khanom, an apprentice solicitor, initiated a claim against Mishcon de Reya in November 2022, seeking redress for issues not detailed in this summary but important enough to warrant legal action. Before the main case was heard there were a series of pre-hearing activities designed to ensure a fair and efficient resolution. This is common in most, if not all, cases coming before the Tribunal. However, in this case, the path to resolution was marred by non-compliance and absenteeism on the part of Ms. Khanom.
Despite the tribunal's efforts to manage the case effectively, providing clear instructions and deadlines, Ms. Khanom failed to meet essential procedural requirements. She did not submit necessary medical evidence or disclose critical documents by the set deadlines, despite multiple reminders. Her lack of engagement did not go unnoticed, prompting the respondent to request the tribunal to enforce compliance through stricter measures.
As the final hearing approached, Ms. Khanom's participation did not improve. The tribunal, led by Employment Judge P Klimov, faced a dilemma when Ms. Khanom failed to attend a crucial preliminary hearing. Her explanation was given by phone, 25 minutes before the hearing. She was at the airport and said that she was unavailable due to a family trip, a commitment she deemed more pressing than the tribunal hearing she had been aware of for months!
The tribunal, tasked with maintaining the integrity of the legal process, was compelled to make a tough decision in the face of Ms. Khanom's continued non-engagement. Justice demands active participation from both parties, and when one party repeatedly fails to engage, it undermines the process and can lead to an unjust use of the tribunal's time and resources, potentially affecting other cases awaiting their day in court.
Judge Klimov, after a thorough consideration of the facts and the procedural history, determined that the case could not proceed in Ms. Khanom's absence. Her non-attendance was not just a minor oversight; it was the culmination of a series of failures to comply with the tribunal's orders, showing a disregard for the legal process and the rights of the respondent.
In the end, the claim was dismissed, not on the merits of the legal arguments, but because Ms. Khanom did not uphold her responsibilities as a participant in the legal process. This decision underscores a fundamental principle of justice: it requires active and respectful engagement from all parties. When a party disregards this principle, they not only jeopardise their case but also impede the tribunal's ability to administer justice efficiently and fairly.
Comment
This case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of procedural compliance in the legal system, and in particular, employment tribunals. It's not just about the law itself but about how the law is practised and upheld, ensuring that every party has a fair opportunity to present their case and be heard.
Ms. Khanom's case was not lost based on the issues at hand, but because she failed to engage with the process designed to resolve those very issues. In the realm of justice, engagement is not optional; it's foundational.
What next?
I understand Mischon de Reya are considering making a costs application. Given what has been said in the judgment I think they have a very good chance of succeeding, so if I was in Ms Khanom’s shoes I would start saving. Mischon don’t come cheap!
LBWF’s latest employment tribunal case: allegations of serious Town Hall racism dismissed, but a sour taste lingers
‘No leading lady worth that label in the golden age of Hollywood would have balked at being called “glamorous”. But Joan Crawford and Rita Hayworth were not slaving away in modern local authority offices, where, according to an employment tribunal judge, the term is “undermining” and “belittling”.
The judge, Sophie Park, said that “in a business context … being described as glamorous is potentially inappropriate”. The word “could be taken as undermining or belittling the person being described, making them seem less serious and professional”. Waltham Forest Matters
Employment tribunal sees out-of-hours GPs recoup holiday pay
The BMA is supporting a number of out-of-hours GPs across Wales who are being ‘deprived’ of employment rights such as holiday pay.
Three OOH GPs recently ‘recouped’ a ‘significant sum’ of holiday pay in a ‘collective case’ at the employment tribunal, according to the BMA. Pulse
'£1.2m' psychiatric locums are just tip of iceberg for NHS
The cost of agency doctors hit the headlines last week after it emerged that NHS Western Isles spent almost £1.2 million in a single year on two locum psychiatrists.
The details emerged as a result of an employment tribunal, but it hints at a wider – and growing – issue. Herald Scotland
Taxi examiner 'doctored' Knowledge of London results and 'asked candidates same questions'
A former London taxi driver examiner has had his claim of unfair dismissal dismissed by officials after he 'doctored' candidates' Knowledge of London (KoL) test scores after they were consistently above the average of his fellow testers' marks. Aspiring Transport for London (TfL) cabbies need to pass multiple rounds of testing before they are allowed to take fares on the city's roads. My London