Claimant v Metaltech UK Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant withdrew the unfair dismissal claim after a preliminary hearing on 25 March 2025 because he did not have the necessary continuous service to bring such a claim.
The claim was not struck out. It includes alleged failure to pay pension contributions timeously, alleged non-compliance with probationary period terms, and alleged underpayment. These remain to be determined at a full hearing.
The tribunal refused the respondent's strike out application, finding there was a core of disputed fact and that the claim should proceed to a full merits hearing. There is public interest in hearing race discrimination claims.
The tribunal refused the respondent's strike out application, finding there was a core of disputed fact. The particulars of the harassment claim are brief but cannot be struck out at this stage without hearing evidence.
The tribunal refused the respondent's strike out application. The claim is pleaded under section 27 Equality Act 2010 and, despite brief particulars, cannot be struck out without hearing evidence on the merits.
Facts
The claimant, a South African welder, brought claims of race discrimination (direct, harassment, victimisation) and breach of contract against his former employer after dismissal for alleged work performance and unauthorised leave. The respondent applied to strike out the claims arguing they were vexatious, had no reasonable prospects of success, and that a fair trial was impossible due to witness intimidation. The respondent relied on allegations of aggressive conduct during employment, social media posts, and a 2018 domestic abuse conviction (which appeared to be spent). Two key witnesses for the respondent expressed fear of the claimant and reluctance to give evidence.
Decision
The tribunal refused the strike out application. The judge found there was a core of disputed fact that required a full hearing with evidence. The tribunal was not satisfied that the claims were vexatious, had no reasonable prospects of success, or that a fair trial was impossible. The judge noted that even if grounds were established, it would not be in accordance with the overriding objective to strike out race discrimination claims except in very limited circumstances. The respondent was directed to consider applying for a deposit order instead, and a final hearing is to be listed.
Practical note
Tribunals will not strike out race discrimination claims except in the clearest cases; mere perception of threat by witnesses, without direct evidence of actual intimidation, is insufficient to establish that a fair trial is impossible under Rule 38(1)(e).
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000238/2025
- Decision date
- 15 July 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Metaltech UK Ltd
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Welder
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No