Cases6006332/2024

Claimant v Tyne & Wear Passenger Transport Executive t/a Nexus

4 March 2025Before Employment Judge GowlandNewcastlein person

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Victimisationnot determined

This was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's strike-out and deposit order applications. The tribunal dismissed the strike-out application, finding core factual disputes requiring determination at a full merits hearing. Deposit orders of £50 each were made for detriments two and three due to little reasonable prospect of success on time taken to provide references. Detriment one was withdrawn by the claimant. The substantive victimisation claims remain to be determined.

Facts

The claimant brought her third claim against the respondent, alleging victimisation relating to delays in providing employment references. The employment relationship ended in 2022. The claimant alleged three detriments: references requested by Tyne Coast College (October 2023), Humley (January-February 2024), and Tutor Recruitment (April 2024, delayed due to staff annual leave). The respondent applied to strike out the claims as abuse of process, vexatious, and having no reasonable prospect of success. Two previous claims by the claimant against the respondent had been struck out.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the respondent's strike-out application, finding that core factual disputes existed requiring determination at a full hearing, particularly regarding whether a policy was unfairly applied, causation, detriment, and time limits. However, the tribunal made deposit orders of £50 each for detriments two and three, finding little reasonable prospect of success regarding the time taken to provide those references. The tribunal also rejected the abuse of process argument, finding the current claims concerned different subject matter from previous litigation.

Practical note

Even in the context of serial litigation by an unrepresented claimant, tribunals will be cautious about striking out discrimination claims where core facts are disputed and should be determined at a full hearing, though deposit orders may be appropriate where specific allegations have little reasonable prospect of success.

Legal authorities cited

Balls v Downham Market High School [2011] IRLR 217Warburton v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police 2022 EAT 42Hemdan v Ishmail [2017] IRLR 228Wright v Nipponkoa Insurance [2014] UKEAT/0113/14Van Rensburg v Royal Borough of Kingston-Upon-Thames [2007] UKEAT/0095/07Ukegheson v Haringey London Borough Council [2015] ICR 1285Cox v Adecco Group UK [2021] ICR 1307James v Public Health Wales NHS Trust UKEAT 0170/14London Borough of Haringey v O Brien UKEAT/0004/16/LAHasan v Tesco Stores Ltd EAT 0098/16Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] ICR 337Henderson v HendersonJohnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd [2013] 4 All ER 715Franked Income Investment Group Litigation v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2020] UKSC 47

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.27Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 r.38Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 r.40Equality Act 2010 s.123

Case details

Case number
6006332/2024
Decision date
4 March 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
transport
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No