Claimant v STV Television Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
This was a preliminary hearing on case management applications. The claimant brought a claim for automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent denies dismissal was for protected disclosures and asserts it was by reason of redundancy or another reason. Substantive issues have not yet been determined.
Claim for detriment for making protected disclosures under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal noted there are disputes of fact requiring resolution at a final hearing. Whether disclosures are qualifying disclosures is a technical legal issue still to be determined.
Claims under the Equality Act 2010 including failure to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal noted that disability status, knowledge of disability, and knowledge of substantial disadvantage are all matters in dispute. These are fact-sensitive issues requiring full examination at final hearing.
Facts
The claimant brought claims for automatic unfair dismissal, detriment for making protected disclosures, and disability discrimination against STV Television Limited and three individual respondents. The claimant made multiple case management applications including applications for the judge to recuse himself, for strike-out of all responses, and for a default judgment under Rule 22. The claimant argued the responses had no reasonable prospects of success and that the ET3 had not been properly filed. The respondents contested all claims and indicated the ET3 was hand-delivered and date-stamped by the tribunal on 3 September 2025, the due date.
Decision
The tribunal refused all three applications. The recusal application failed as there was no actual or apparent bias; the judge's previous case management decisions and expression of concerns did not constitute bias. The strike-out application failed because the responses set out a statable defence and there were disputes of fact requiring resolution at a final hearing. The Rule 22 application failed because the ET3 was properly and timeously presented on 3 September 2025.
Practical note
Strike-out applications based on 'no reasonable prospects of success' will fail where there are material disputes of fact requiring oral evidence, particularly in discrimination cases which are inherently fact-sensitive and require caution before strike-out.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4102832/2025
- Decision date
- 6 January 2026
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- media
- Represented
- Yes
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No