Claimant v Rendall and Rittner Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal ruled that a previous withdrawn claim (1808711/2024) did not create cause of action estoppel or issue estoppel, allowing the claimant to pursue complaints under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The merits of these claims were not determined at this preliminary hearing.
The claim concerning failure to make reasonable adjustments regarding use of a non-flushing toilet and requirement to take breaks in the claimant's office was struck out under rule 38(1)(a) because the tribunal found it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The victimisation claim was struck out under rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal determined the claimant had not done a protected act as required by section 27(1) of the Equality Act 2010.
The claim for breach of sex equality clause under section 127 of the Equality Act 2010 was struck out under rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal found the claimant had no comparator of the opposite sex engaged in equal work to him.
Facts
The claimant brought multiple claims including disability discrimination (failure to make reasonable adjustments regarding a non-flushing toilet and break location), victimisation, equal pay, and wage deduction claims. A previous claim (1808711/2024) had been withdrawn. The respondent applied to strike out various claims on the basis they had no reasonable prospect of success.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the disability discrimination, victimisation, and equal pay claims under rule 38(1)(a) for having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal found no protected act for victimisation, no appropriate comparator for equal pay, and that the reasonable adjustments claim could not succeed. The tribunal ruled that wage deduction claims could proceed as the withdrawn earlier claim did not create estoppel.
Practical note
At preliminary hearings, tribunals will strike out claims with no reasonable prospect of success, particularly where fundamental legal requirements are not met such as lack of a protected act in victimisation claims or absence of an appropriate comparator in equal pay cases.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6021950/2024
- Decision date
- 27 August 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No