Claimant v Macintyre Academies

The claim under s.103A ERA 1996 (automatic unfair dismissal for protected disclosure) survived strike-out. The tribunal found that key elements had been set out in the claim forms: alleged protected disclosures on 29 January and 22 February 2022, breaches relating to withheld suspension pay and disciplinary measures in retaliation. The claim proceeds to a full merits hearing in January 2025.

Struck out for non-compliance with Employment Judge Glennie's orders to clarify the claim. Despite two opportunities to comply with clear directions to set out dates, events, persons involved and claim types, the claimant failed to provide coherent allegations. The tribunal found it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing on these discrimination claims.

Struck out for non-compliance with case management orders. The claimant provided voluminous but incoherent documentation mixing legal terminology without meaningful facts. The tribunal could not discern a coherent claim of race discrimination despite extensive attempts.

Struck out for non-compliance. The claimant was twice ordered to clarify her claims in simple terms but failed to do so, instead providing jumbled documentation using legal terminology without regard to the tribunal's clear directions.

Struck out for non-compliance with tribunal orders. After two opportunities to clarify the claims, the claimant failed to set out coherent allegations in the format directed by Employment Judge Glennie. A fair hearing was no longer possible.

Struck out along with other discrimination claims for non-compliance with case management orders. The claimant failed to provide coherent particulars despite clear directions, making a fair hearing impossible.

Struck out for non-compliance. The claimant mentioned harassment in her submissions but failed to provide coherent allegations in the ordered format. The tribunal could not identify clear factual allegations that could be determined.

Struck out for non-compliance with case management orders. Despite references to victimisation in the claimant's various submissions, no coherent claim could be discerned from the voluminous documentation provided.

Struck out as a separate claim. However, breach of contract issues (withheld suspension pay and retaliatory disciplinary measures) form part of the constructive dismissal claim under s.103A which proceeds to full hearing.

Struck out for non-compliance. References to monies owed from suspension pay were made but no coherent claim was particularised despite tribunal orders. These issues may be relevant to the surviving constructive dismissal claim.

Application for interim relief under s.128 ERA 1996 was dismissed by Employment Judge Hodgson on 7 December 2023. Different threshold test applies to interim relief than to the full merits hearing.