Claimant v Securitas Security Services (UK) Ltd

The tribunal declined to strike out the constructive dismissal claim, finding it not without prospects of success. The claimant argues that after being told on 29 December 2022 that there was no breach of policy, the respondent's decision to proceed with a disciplinary investigation and suspend her breached the implied term of trust and confidence. The tribunal held that the reasons for proceeding and for the suspension required exploration at full hearing.

The tribunal declined to strike out the race discrimination claim. Although the respondent argued the claimant had not adequately particularised why the treatment was because of race, the tribunal found there was likely to be a core factual dispute as to the reason for the disciplinary process and suspension. The tribunal emphasised the need for care in striking out discrimination claims and that evidence needed to be tested at full hearing.

The tribunal declined to strike out the sex discrimination claim. Although the respondent argued the claimant had not adequately particularised why the treatment was because of sex, the tribunal found there was likely to be a core factual dispute as to the reason for the disciplinary process and suspension. The tribunal emphasised the need for care in striking out discrimination claims and that evidence needed to be tested at full hearing.

The tribunal declined to strike out the harassment claim related to race. The respondent submitted that the claimant had simply recited a long list of allegations without proper particulars, but the tribunal found that the same allegations could succeed under different legal heads, that there was likely to be core factual dispute, and that care must be taken not to strike out discrimination claims where evidence needs to be tested.

The tribunal declined to strike out the harassment claim related to sex. The respondent submitted that the claimant had simply recited a long list of allegations without proper particulars, but the tribunal found that the same allegations could succeed under different legal heads, that there was likely to be core factual dispute, and that care must be taken not to strike out discrimination claims where evidence needs to be tested.

The tribunal found the claimant had little reasonable prospect of showing she made a protected disclosure on 29 December 2022 or 9 January 2023. The only possible disclosure was a statement that she felt 'victimised' but there was no pleaded protected act prior to that meeting. Despite three attempts with representation to particularise what was said that amounted to a protected disclosure, the claimant failed to identify information tending to show breach of legal obligation. A separate deposit order was made.

The tribunal found the claimant had little reasonable prospect of showing she did a protected act. The claimant relied on the same matters as for protected disclosures but the legal tests are very different. The tribunal could find nothing in the alleged disclosures that showed the claimant said anything falling within the definition of protected act under section 27 Equality Act 2010. A separate deposit order was made.