Claimant v LCN Legal Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Respondent applied to strike out the sex discrimination complaint under Rule 38(1)(a), arguing it had no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal refused the strike-out application, determining the claim should proceed to a full hearing.
Respondent applied to strike out the harassment complaint under Rule 38(1)(a), arguing it had no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal refused the strike-out application, determining the claim should proceed to a full hearing.
Facts
Mrs Polden brought complaints of sex discrimination and harassment against LCN Legal Limited and two individual respondents (Mr P Sutton and Mrs X Sutton). The respondents applied for the claims to be struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) on the basis they had no reasonable prospect of success, and alternatively sought a deposit order under Rule 40. This was a preliminary hearing held remotely by CVP on 5 March 2025.
Decision
Employment Judge McCooey refused both the strike-out application and the deposit order application. The tribunal determined that the sex discrimination and harassment complaints should proceed to a full hearing. Reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Practical note
The respondent's threshold for striking out discrimination claims at a preliminary stage was not met, demonstrating tribunals' reluctance to dispose of such claims without hearing full evidence.
Case details
- Case number
- 3303034/2024
- Decision date
- 5 March 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- legal services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister