Cases6003812/2024

Claimant v Platinum Cleaning Services South West Ltd

17 February 2025Before Employment Judge LiveseyBristolremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(sex)failed

The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the claimant had issued proceedings against the wrong company. The advertisements complained of were not written or placed by these respondents but likely by a different company, Platinum Cleaning & Laundry Services Ltd trading as Platinum Cleaning Services based in Barry, Vale of Glamorgan. Since the respondents did not place the discriminatory advertisement, the claim could not succeed against them.

Facts

The claimant, a serial litigant identified in previous EAT decisions, brought a sex discrimination claim alleging he was excluded from applying for a job advertised as seeking a 'female house cleaner' in the Vale of Glamorgan at £10.50/hr. The claimant lives in Hounslow and claimed he would have relocated for the part-time role. The tribunal found that the claimant had sued the wrong company - the advertisement was placed by Platinum Cleaning & Laundry Services Ltd in Barry, not by the respondent Platinum Cleaning Services South West Ltd based in Melksham, Wiltshire. The respondent provided evidence they had never advertised for cleaners in the Vale of Glamorgan and the claimant had never worked for them.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the claim, finding the claimant had issued proceedings against the wrong respondents who had not placed the discriminatory advertisement. The tribunal also refused the claimant's application to amend to substitute the correct respondent at the final hearing stage, as this was significantly out of time, would add a new party over 6 months after the claim was issued, and the claimant could issue fresh proceedings against the correct party.

Practical note

Claimants must take proper steps to identify the correct respondent when issuing proceedings, and tribunals will refuse late amendments to substitute parties at final hearing stage, particularly where the claimant is a serial litigant with a track record of claims lacking genuine merit.

Legal authorities cited

Vaughan v Modality [2021] IRLR 97Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster Ltd [2014] ICR 209Ramos v Lady Coco [2023] EAT 99Ramos v Nottinghamshire Woman's Aid Ltd [2024] EAT 67Galilee v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis UKEAT 0207/16/RN

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.19Equality Act 2010 s.13

Case details

Case number
6003812/2024
Decision date
17 February 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
professional services
Represented
No
Rep type
self

Employment details

Role
house cleaner

Claimant representation

Represented
No