Claimant v Petroineos Trading Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim based on annual bonus payments (2019-2023), denial of Vice President status (2018-2022), and forced transfer to COEO role (June 2022). Respondent's strike-out application refused; tribunal found Claimant had reasonable prospect of establishing conduct extending over a period and, if necessary, just and equitable extension.
Claim based on denial of Vice President status and forced transfer to COEO role. Claimant, of Thai descent, alleged discrimination by Chinese male senior management. Strike-out application refused; tribunal found reasonable prospects of success on jurisdictional arguments.
Based on protected acts of 18 August and 18 October 2023. Allegations included being required to attend grievance interview when unfit, failure to supply comparator pay details, and being placed on statutory sick pay. Strike-out application refused.
Detriment claims based on various disclosures, including removal from PNL list, requirement to hand over Bio Streaming Initiatives, and matters overlapping with victimisation claims. Strike-out application refused.
Facts
The Claimant, of Thai descent, worked as a trader from 2012 until forced transfer to a non-trading role (COEO) in June 2022 with reduced pay and status. She alleges systematic race and sex discrimination by Chinese male senior management regarding bonus payments (2019-2023), denial of VP status (2018-2022), and the forced transfer. She went on sick leave after raising a grievance in August 2023. Respondent applied to strike out pre-August 2023 claims as out of time.
Decision
The tribunal refused the respondent's strike-out and deposit order applications. The judge held the claimant had reasonable prospects of establishing that the pre-August 2023 acts formed 'conduct extending over a period' and, if necessary, that a just and equitable extension should be granted. The judge criticised the respondent's approach of seeking to impose a 'prima facie case' test rather than applying the statutory 'no reasonable prospect of success' test, and rejected the calling of oral evidence at a strike-out hearing.
Practical note
Strike-out applications on limitation grounds in discrimination cases face a very high bar and must apply the statutory 'no reasonable prospect of success' test, not a 'prima facie case' test; tribunals should not hear oral evidence or make findings of fact at strike-out hearings.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2200468/2024
- Decision date
- 8 February 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- energy
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- General Manager, Crude / trader
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister