Transport for London

Case Summary

The claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal and race discrimination against Transport for London. The tribunal struck out the claim because the claimant failed to comply with previous orders, did not attend a preliminary hearing, and the unfair dismissal complaint had no reasonable prospects due to lack of qualifying period. The claimant's pattern of non-engagement made it impossible to conduct a fair hearing.

The unfair dismissal complaint had no reasonable prospects because the claimant did not appear to have the right to bring such a claim under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. Additionally, the claimant failed to comply with tribunal orders to provide further information by 11 February 2026 and a schedule of loss by 11 March 2026, failed to attend a preliminary hearing despite reminders, and demonstrated a pattern of non-engagement that made a fair hearing impossible and would likely continue.

• •Whether claimant had qualifying period for unfair dismissal claim under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
• •Failure to comply with tribunal orders
• •Failure to actively pursue the claim
• •Race discrimination complaint

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: D Vundla Respondent: Transport for London JUDGMENT The claim is struck out. REASONS 1. In this claim the claimant brings complaints of unfair dismissal and race discrimination. The claim is listed for a final hearing on 14-15 July 2026. 2. The Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 19 March 2025 warning him that the Tribunal was considering striking out the complaint of unfair dismissal because the claimant did not appear to have the right to bring such a claim (section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996). A period of 21 days was provided for the claimant to respond in writing to that warning. No response was received. 3. A preliminary hearing for case management was listed to take place at 2pm on 21 January 2026. The claimant did not attend, despite a voicemail and email from the Tribunal clerk reminding him about the hearing. In his absence the claimant was directed by EJ Tueje to take various steps, including: a. By 11 February 2026, responding to the respondent’s request for further information and to the Tribunal’s letter of 19 March 2025; and b. By 11 March 2026, providing a schedule of loss to the respondent and to the Tribunal. 4. The final page of EJ Tueje’s orders notes that “Under rule 6, if this Order is not complied with, the Tribunal may take such action as it considers just which may include (a) waiving or varying the requirement; (b) striking out the claim or the response, in whole or in part, in accordance with rule 38; (c) barring or restricting a party’s participation in the proceedings; and/or (d) awarding costs in accordance with rules 72-82.” 5. On 9 March 2026, the respondent applied for strike-out of the claim on the basis that the claimant had failed to comply with EJ Tueje’s order in respect of the steps required to be taken by 11 February 2026, and that the claim has not been actively pursued. 6. I can also see on file that the claimant has not subm…