Claimant v Select Fashion Ltd (in creditors voluntary liquidation)
Outcome
Individual claims
This preliminary hearing determined only whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claim. The substantive merits of the sex discrimination complaint have not yet been adjudicated.
This preliminary hearing determined only whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claim. The substantive merits of the harassment complaint related to sex have not yet been adjudicated.
This preliminary hearing determined only whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claim. The substantive merits of the victimisation complaint have not yet been adjudicated.
Although not expressly pleaded in the claim form, the claimant contends that complaints of unfavourable treatment during the protected period in relation to her second pregnancy are properly characterised as pregnancy discrimination. The substantive merits have not yet been adjudicated.
Facts
The claimant was employed from November 2009, eventually becoming an employee of the first respondent after a TUPE transfer in June 2022. She presented a claim for sex discrimination, harassment, and victimisation in March 2023. She was dismissed in April 2023. The first respondent entered into a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) in May 2023, which specifically required the claimant to discontinue her tribunal claim and have it adjudicated by the CVA supervisors instead. The respondents argued the CVA ousted the tribunal's jurisdiction; the claimant argued this breached the EU principle of effectiveness.
Decision
The tribunal determined it does have jurisdiction to hear the claimant's claims. The CVA provisions do not fall within section 144 EqA as the CVA is not a 'contract' requiring mutual consent. However, applying the EU principle of effectiveness, which requires effective judicial protection for discrimination rights, the CVA's dispute resolution mechanism (adjudication by accountants/insolvency practitioners, not employment law specialists) does not provide effective protection. The tribunal's jurisdiction is therefore not ousted by the CVA.
Practical note
A Company Voluntary Arrangement cannot be used to oust an Employment Tribunal's jurisdiction over discrimination claims because the EU principle of effectiveness requires specialist adjudication of EU-derived employment rights, which a CVA process cannot provide.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3302379/2023
- Decision date
- 1 August 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Service
- 14 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister