Claimant v Oliver Bernard Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim under section 138 TULR(C)A against first respondent struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant's case was entirely speculative; she had no evidence that the first respondent had knowledge of her trade union membership and admitted her case was based on assumption. She alleged a chain of gossip from her former employer via four recruitment agents but provided no evidence any such communications occurred. The tribunal found no reasonable prospects of proving knowledge, refusal of services, or causative link between trade union membership and alleged refusal.
Claim under section 138 TULR(C)A against second respondent struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant's case was even weaker than against the first respondent. She admitted to an earlier judge that she did not 'honestly believe' the alleged treatment was connected to trade union membership and could not 'trace out' a link. Her subsequent efforts produced only LinkedIn connections between recruiters. The tribunal found no reasonable prospects of establishing knowledge of trade union membership or causative link to alleged refusal of services.
Race discrimination claims (based on Portuguese nationality) against both respondents remain to be determined at a future hearing.
Withdrawn by claimant
Withdrawn by claimant
Facts
The claimant, a designer, was a job-seeker registered with both respondent recruitment agencies. She had previously been employed by Reply UK and used her trade union to recover unpaid wages in September 2022. She believed she was subsequently 'blacklisted' by various recruitment agencies including the respondents. She alleged the respondents refused their services because they knew of her trade union membership through a chain of gossip between recruiters. Her evidence for this consisted solely of LinkedIn connections between various recruitment agents. The respondents denied knowledge of her trade union membership or any refusal of services.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the trade union victimisation claims against both respondents under Rule 37(1)(a) for having no reasonable prospect of success. The judge found the claims were entirely speculative with no evidential basis. The claimant admitted her case on knowledge was an 'assumption' based on LinkedIn connections, provided no evidence of any actual communications, and failed to establish any causative link between trade union membership and alleged refusal of services. The race discrimination claims remain to be determined.
Practical note
Claims based purely on speculation, networking connections, and assumptions—even from litigants in person—can properly be struck out at preliminary hearing where there is no reasonable prospect of establishing the essential elements of the claim.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2216640/2023
- Decision date
- 22 May 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Designer
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No