Claimant v Keyloop (UK) Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
This is a preliminary hearing dealing with the admissibility of without prejudice communications. The tribunal struck out two of the victimisation claims (15c and 15d) but the underlying constructive dismissal claim remains to be determined at a full hearing.
This claim remains to be determined at a full merits hearing. The preliminary hearing addressed only whether certain settlement discussions could be admitted as evidence.
The sex discrimination claim remains to be determined at a full merits hearing. No determination was made on the merits of this claim.
The harassment claim remains to be determined at a full merits hearing. The preliminary hearing did not address the merits of this claim.
The tribunal struck out victimisation claims at issues 15(c) and 15(d) on the basis they had no reasonable prospects of success, as they relied on without prejudice communications from 4 January 2024 and March/April 2024. The tribunal found the without prejudice rule applied and the exception for unambiguous impropriety was not met. Other victimisation claims may remain.
Facts
The claimant was employed from 2003 and promoted to Global Head of Professional Services in September 2022. In January 2024, the CEO (second respondent) informed her she would be replaced and offered her a demotion to Senior Vice President or a settlement package. She resigned on 9 January 2024 alleging sex discrimination. Settlement negotiations continued into April 2024, with the respondent's offer becoming considerably less generous after the claimant notified ACAS of a discrimination claim. The claimant brought claims of constructive dismissal, discrimination, harassment and victimisation.
Decision
The tribunal held that the settlement offer of 4 January 2024 was protected by the without prejudice rule, as there was a potential dispute that the respondent reasonably anticipated might lead to litigation. The tribunal found the exception for unambiguous impropriety did not apply, as the claimant had not demonstrated a clear case of discrimination or victimisation — a bare allegation was insufficient. Two victimisation claims (15c and 15d) relying on the without prejudice communications were struck out for having no reasonable prospects of success.
Practical note
A bare allegation of discrimination or victimisation is insufficient to disapply the without prejudice rule; the exception for unambiguous impropriety requires a clear case of discriminatory conduct, not merely an assertion that settlement offers were discriminatory.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3305333/2024
- Decision date
- 27 May 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Global Head of Professional Services
- Service
- 21 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister