Claimant v UAE Embassy Cultural Attaché London
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out because claimant had not been dismissed as at 31 October 2022 when claim was presented (dismissal occurred 10 February 2023); amendment application refused as brought out of time and not reasonably practicable to have brought in time; claimant sent amendment application to wrong email address and did not copy respondents.
Claim struck out because claimant had not been dismissed as at 31 October 2022 when claim was presented; dismissal occurred on 10 February 2023; amendment application refused as out of time.
Claim struck out because it arose out of a purported dismissal which had not happened as at 31 October 2022; dismissal did not occur until 10 February 2023; amendment application refused as out of time.
Claim struck out because it arose out of a purported dismissal which had not happened as at 31 October 2022; dismissal did not occur until 10 February 2023.
All race discrimination complaints struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. Claimant unable to articulate any coherent case showing how treatment was related to race or nationality; relied solely on fact that colleagues were of different nationalities, which is insufficient to shift burden of proof under Madarassy. Claimant made sweeping and unreasonable generalizations about nationalities and could not explain any link between race and alleged detriments.
Complaint continues to final hearing. Respondents conceded this is fact-sensitive and needs to be determined at final hearing after hearing all evidence.
Complaint continues to final hearing. Respondents conceded this is fact-sensitive and needs to be determined at final hearing after hearing all evidence.
Claim continues. Claimant alleges First Respondent made unlawful deductions by taking benefit of tax exemption and paying only net salary, and by failing to pay annual increments. Not struck out at preliminary hearing.
Claims of 'Labour abuse and exploitation; bullying and hatred; long working hours and overload; other staff not attending work' struck out as misconceived - they do not exist in law and/or Tribunal has no jurisdiction over them. General complaint of 'overwork' has no basis in law before the Tribunal.
Claim continues. Right to be accompanied under s10 ERA 1999 does not depend on union recognition but on certification and training. Respondent's argument for strike out rejected.
Facts
Claimant, an accountant employed by UAE Embassy Cultural Attaché from August 2015, was investigated following a misdirected payment of £83,000 in September 2021. He was suspended on 7 April 2022 and ultimately dismissed on 10 February 2023, allegedly because his visa had expired. He presented his claim on 31 October 2022, when he had not yet been dismissed. He attempted to amend his claim on 9 May 2023 but sent the application to the wrong email address and did not copy the respondents. The claimant alleged his treatment was due to race discrimination, whistleblowing, and victimisation.
Decision
The Tribunal refused permission to amend and struck out the dismissal-related claims (unfair dismissal, notice pay, holiday pay, redundancy pay) as they related to a dismissal that had not occurred when the original claim was filed. All race discrimination claims were struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success, as the claimant could not articulate any link between the alleged treatment and race beyond the fact that colleagues had different nationalities. Claims for 'labour abuse', 'bullying and hatred' and 'overwork' were struck out as misconceived and outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Whistleblowing and victimisation claims continue to a final hearing.
Practical note
A claimant cannot bring dismissal-related claims before the dismissal has occurred, and mere assertion of difference in nationality between a claimant and colleagues, without more, is insufficient to establish even an arguable case of race discrimination under the Madarassy test.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2303835/2022
- Decision date
- 7 March 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- accountant
- Service
- 8 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No