Claimant v London Borough of Harrow
Outcome
Individual claims
Respondent's application to strike out race discrimination complaints under r38(1)(a) was refused. The tribunal found the matter finely balanced but decided not to make a deposit order, primarily to avoid trespassing on a previous decision by EJ Dick, and determined the claims should proceed to trial to be determined on evidence.
Allegations relate to claimant's East African Indian ethnicity. The tribunal expressed doubts about prospects of success, noting the claimant stated one comparator (KP) was unaware of her ethnicity until January 2021 and that she did not believe another comparator (BD) treated her differently because of this ethnicity. However, the claim was allowed to proceed to trial.
Alternative claim to direct discrimination. While the tribunal had doubts about the direct discrimination claims, it found that harassment claims were not necessarily precluded and should be determined at trial on the basis of evidence.
Facts
The claimant, representing herself, brought race discrimination claims against Harrow Council. The respondent applied to strike out the claim for non-pursuit due to the claimant's failure to comply with tribunal orders, which she attributed to health difficulties. The respondent also applied to strike out or order a deposit on race discrimination claims, arguing the claimant had vacillated on her protected characteristic (initially British Asian, later East African Indian) and that her purported ethnicity could not be a recognised ethnic group. Key witnesses mentioned include KP, BD, and RS.
Decision
Employment Judge Wyeth refused both strike-out applications. On the non-pursuit application, the judge found the delay was not inordinate and inexcusable to the extent required, and that key witnesses remained available so a fair hearing was possible. On the race discrimination application, the judge declined to make a deposit order, primarily to avoid trespassing on a previous decision by EJ Dick who had already considered similar arguments, and determined the matter should proceed to trial.
Practical note
A tribunal will be reluctant to strike out claims or order deposits at a preliminary hearing where previous case management decisions have addressed similar issues, and where a fair trial remains possible despite procedural delays, particularly when the claimant is unrepresented and has health difficulties.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3302394/2023
- Decision date
- 19 September 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- local government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No