Cases2219743/2024

Claimant v Clyde & Co LLP

29 December 2025Before Employment Judge Andrew Clarke KCLondon Centralremote video

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Harassmentstruck out

Claims of harassment based on content of emails sent by Ms Kenwright and Ms Kirrane were struck out pursuant to rule 38(1)(a) at a preliminary hearing.

Direct Discriminationstruck out

Claims of direct discrimination based on content of emails sent by Ms Kenwright and Ms Kirrane were struck out pursuant to rule 38(1)(a) at a preliminary hearing.

Victimisationstruck out

Claims of victimisation based on content of emails sent by Ms Kenwright and Ms Kirrane were struck out pursuant to rule 38(1)(a) at a preliminary hearing.

Otherdismissed on withdrawal

Claim for unlawful means conspiracy was dismissed by consent at the preliminary hearing.

Facts

Miss Epelle brought claims of harassment, direct discrimination and victimisation against Clyde & Co LLP and multiple individual respondents, relating to emails sent by colleagues. The case involved complex issues about which legal entities should be respondents, territorial jurisdiction, and the scope of the claims. The tribunal dealt with preliminary matters including adding respondents, removing others, and striking out certain allegations.

Decision

The tribunal added two Clyde & Co entities as respondents and dismissed claims against five individual respondents. Harassment, discrimination and victimisation claims based on email content were struck out under rule 38(1)(a). Allegations relating to ACAS conciliation were struck out as subject to legal privilege. The unlawful means conspiracy claim was dismissed by consent. The tribunal confirmed it has territorial jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Practical note

Allegations based on communications made during ACAS conciliation are subject to legal privilege and will be struck out, and claimants must carefully identify the correct respondent entities in cases involving complex corporate structures.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure rule 38(1)(a)Equality Act ss. 111, 112

Case details

Case number
2219743/2024
Decision date
29 December 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
legal services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No