Cases2301746/2024

Claimant v Ms J Mien

11 April 2025Before Employment Judge MortonLondon South

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Victimisationstruck out

The tribunal found that all allegations against Ms Mien had no reasonable prospect of success. These included allegations about obtaining medical documents without consent (documentary evidence showed consent was obtained), changing passwords (normal document management practice), obtaining draft occupational reports without consent (extremely improbable given Ms Mien's professional role), sending documents on purple paper (complete documentary answer at page 1225), making discriminatory statements in investigation report (balanced report that actually upheld some of claimant's complaints), delay in producing report (not unreasonable and no link to protected act), and rewording complaints (documentary evidence provided complete answer). The tribunal concluded the claimant could not establish detriment or causation linking any conduct to protected acts.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)struck out

Claims were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal noted the claimant had difficulties explaining her claims due to disabilities and adjustments were made to allow additional time, but even taking the claims at their highest, they could not succeed on their merits.

Facts

The claimant brought multiple claims of victimisation and disability discrimination against Ms Mien, an individual respondent who had conducted an investigation. The claims included allegations that Ms Mien obtained medical documents without consent, changed passwords, sent documents on purple paper, and included discriminatory statements in her investigation report. Ms Mien applied for strike out on the basis the claims had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant was given 28 days to respond to the application but failed to do so.

Decision

The tribunal struck out all claims against Ms Mien under Rule 38 as having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal found documentary evidence contradicted many allegations, the investigation report was balanced and professional, and the claimant could not establish detriment or causation linking any conduct to protected acts. Despite making adjustments for the claimant's disabilities and taking her case at its highest, the claims could not succeed.

Practical note

Even in discrimination cases where strike out is exceptional, claims will be struck out where documentary evidence provides complete answers to allegations and the claimant cannot establish the basic elements of detriment and causation, particularly against professional investigators whose reports were balanced and fair.

Legal authorities cited

Hawkins v Atex Group Ltd [2012] IRLR 807Cox v Adecco [2021] ICR 1307Arvenescu v Quick Release Automotive [2022] EAT 26Dundee City Council v Malcolm UK EATS/0019/15Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] EWCA Civ 330

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.27

Case details

Case number
2301746/2024
Decision date
11 April 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
2
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No