Claimant v A Kahn Design Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal struck out all 71 alleged detriments of victimisation. The protected act relied upon was an email dated 22 March 2020 sent to a colleague supporting that colleague's grievance, but this email was unclear and did not relate to any contravention of the Equality Act 2010. Many detriments occurred before the protected act, many were not detriments at all, many were unconnected to the protected act, and the tribunal found the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.
This claim remains live but was not determined at this preliminary hearing which dealt with without prejudice correspondence and the victimisation strike-out application.
This claim remains live but was not determined at this preliminary hearing.
This claim remains live but was not determined at this preliminary hearing.
This claim remains live but was not determined at this preliminary hearing.
This claim remains live but was not determined at this preliminary hearing.
This claim remains live but was not determined at this preliminary hearing.
Facts
Mr White, employed by A Kahn Design Limited, brought multiple claims including victimisation based on 71 alleged detriments. He claimed the protected act was an email dated 22 March 2020 sent to a colleague supporting that colleague's grievance. Settlement negotiations occurred between January and June 2022 with offers and counter-offers exchanged, but no settlement was reached. The employment ended on 30 April 2024. This preliminary hearing considered whether certain correspondence was without prejudice and whether the victimisation claims should be struck out.
Decision
The tribunal ruled that correspondence between pages 188-207 of the bundle constituted without prejudice communications and was inadmissible at the final hearing. Section 111A ERA was found not to apply as negotiations ended nearly two years before termination. The tribunal struck out all victimisation claims, finding the protected act was unclear, did not relate to any EqA contravention, and the allegations had no reasonable prospect of success.
Practical note
A protected act for victimisation must clearly allege a contravention of the Equality Act; supporting a colleague's general grievance without any equality law element is insufficient.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6000841/2024
- Decision date
- 20 May 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister