Cases2216766/2023

Claimant v Apple Retail Ltd

4 March 2025Before Employment Judge Jonathan GidneyLondon Centralremote video

Outcome

Partly successful

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

The tribunal upheld the respondent's application to strike out this claim on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospect of success at a preliminary hearing.

Breach of Contractstruck out

The claim for notice pay was struck out by the tribunal on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospect of success following the respondent's application at the preliminary hearing.

Harassment(sex)struck out

The harassment claim related to sex regarding the conduct of individuals CD and EF was struck out on the grounds of having no reasonable prospect of success.

Direct Discrimination(sex)not determined

This claim regarding complaint that the respondent prefers the evidence of women in harassment investigations survived the strike-out application and will proceed to full trial.

Direct Discrimination(religion)not determined

This claim regarding complaint that the respondent prefers the evidence of Muslims in harassment investigations survived the strike-out application and will proceed to full trial.

Facts

The claimant XY brought claims against Apple Retail Ltd including unfair dismissal, breach of contract for notice pay, and harassment and discrimination claims related to sex and religion. The claims appeared to relate to how the respondent handled harassment investigations. The claimant sought to amend his particulars of claim but this application was refused.

Decision

The tribunal refused the claimant's amendment application and struck out three claims (unfair dismissal, notice pay, and harassment related to sex) as having no reasonable prospect of success. Two direct discrimination claims survived and will proceed to trial: one alleging the respondent prefers evidence of women, and one alleging preference for evidence of Muslims in harassment investigations.

Practical note

At preliminary hearings, unrepresented claimants face significant risk of having claims struck out for lack of reasonable prospects, but discrimination claims alleging systemic bias in internal investigations may survive if they raise arguable points of law.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.98(4)

Case details

Case number
2216766/2023
Decision date
4 March 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
retail
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No