Cases2216936/2023

Claimant v C Legal LLP

21 March 2025Before Employment Judge HeydonLondon Centralremote video

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(race)not determined

This was a preliminary hearing on strike-out applications. The tribunal found that the claimant had pleaded facts which, if proven, could allow inferences of discrimination to be drawn, and therefore the claim had a reasonable prospect of success. The merits have not yet been determined.

Direct Discrimination(religion)not determined

This was a preliminary hearing on strike-out applications. The tribunal found that the claimant had pleaded facts which, if proven, could allow inferences of discrimination to be drawn, and therefore the claim had a reasonable prospect of success. The merits have not yet been determined.

Harassmentnot determined

The harassment claim was not separately analysed at this preliminary hearing. The tribunal refused the respondent's strike-out application on all claims, finding they had reasonable prospects of success.

Victimisationnot determined

The victimisation claim was not separately analysed at this preliminary hearing. The tribunal refused the respondent's strike-out application on all claims, finding they had reasonable prospects of success.

Whistleblowingnot determined

The claimant brings complaints of protected disclosure detriments. The tribunal refused the respondent's strike-out application on all claims, finding they had reasonable prospects of success.

Facts

The claimant, Mr Naghdi, brought claims of race and religion discrimination, harassment, victimisation and whistleblowing detriments against multiple respondents including two law firms and individual partners. The respondent applied to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant counter-applied to strike out the response on grounds of unreasonable conduct, including improper redaction of privileged documents without transparency, and intimidation of a former employee witness through heavy-handed correspondence threatening regulatory action.

Decision

The tribunal refused both strike-out applications. The respondent's application failed because the claimant had pleaded facts which, if proven, could allow a tribunal to draw inferences of discrimination, giving the claim reasonable prospects. The claimant's application failed because, despite finding one breach of disclosure orders and unreasonable conduct toward a witness, strike-out would be disproportionate and a fair trial remained possible given the available documentary evidence.

Practical note

At preliminary hearings on strike-out applications, tribunals will take claimants' pleaded facts at their highest and will not conduct a mini-trial; even where a respondent has breached disclosure obligations and acted unreasonably toward witnesses, strike-out will only be ordered if a fair trial is no longer possible and the remedy is proportionate.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(b)Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c)Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(e)Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)

Case details

Case number
2216936/2023
Decision date
21 March 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
legal services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No