Claimant v Virgin Media Limited

The tribunal found the claimant had no reasonable prospect of success. The allegations included complaints about Mr Seaton being appointed to hear her appeal despite the claimant agreeing to this on multiple occasions, and allegations Mr Seaton acted to 'pursue sexual fantasies' which had no factual basis. The claimant's documents contradicted her own case that having a male manager hear the appeal was unwanted.

Certain specific disability discrimination complaints were struck out where the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing facts to support allegations, such as the complaint about the note-taker not being female, which was based solely on the camera being off with no evidence the note-taker was male. Other disability discrimination claims relating to questioning at the appeal hearing were not struck out due to factual disputes.

Harassment claims based on Mr Seaton referring to his wife and daughter, failing to ensure a female note-taker, and misleading the claimant about delays were struck out. The tribunal found these could not amount to unwanted conduct with the prohibited effect. Mr Seaton's reference to family in context of explaining he could deal with the appeal appropriately was not capable of being a detriment or harassment.

Some harassment complaints relating to questioning about the claimant's medical condition at the appeal hearing were not struck out due to factual disputes about what was said, though the tribunal expressed doubt about their prospects. Other harassment complaints were struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success.

Both victimisation complaints were struck out. The first alleged deception into attending a video hearing had no factual basis - the claimant knew it was a grievance hearing and could not explain what the deception was. The second alleged a conspiracy to dismiss under pretext of confidentiality breach, but the claimant had no evidence of disciplinary proceedings being arranged or dismissal being considered. Both were found to be fanciful.

Some direct sex discrimination complaints were struck out for having no reasonable prospect (e.g. appointment of male manager to appeal, references to wife/daughter). However, complaints about intrusive questioning at the appeal hearing, requests for medical evidence, and failure to uphold the appeal were not struck out due to factual disputes requiring resolution at a full hearing, though the tribunal expressed reservations about their prospects.