Claimant v Davies Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. Claimant had only 5 months' service, well below the two-year qualifying period required under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No special circumstances applied and claimant provided no acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.
Claimant confirmed during the hearing that he no longer wished to pursue complaints of race discrimination and these were withdrawn. Dismissed upon withdrawal.
Respondent applied to strike out on basis of no reasonable prospects of success, arguing claimant made no credible link between his Sikh religious beliefs and the treatment received. Tribunal refused strike out, finding that taking claimant's case at its highest and given disputed facts, it could not be said there were no reasonable prospects of success, though prospects were considered little.
Respondent applied to strike out religious belief related harassment claim. Tribunal refused strike out for same reasons as direct discrimination claim - taking claimant's case at its highest and given factual disputes, could not say no reasonable prospects of success. However, tribunal considered prospects little and ordered deposit.
Claims for notice pay, holiday pay and redundancy pay were withdrawn by claimant in email dated 27 August 2024 and dismissed upon withdrawal.
Facts
Claimant was employed as Customer Service Advisor for just under 6 months from March to August 2023. He brought claims following events around his grandmother's death and funeral in May 2023. He alleged he was contacted on the day of the funeral, his leave was incorrectly recorded as holiday rather than religious observance, and he was subjected to inappropriate treatment in a return to work meeting on 27 May 2023 including being reprimanded and called a liar. Claimant is Sikh and alleged this treatment was related to his religious beliefs.
Decision
Tribunal struck out unfair dismissal claim as claimant had only 5 months' service and did not meet the 2-year qualifying period. Refused to strike out direct religious belief discrimination and harassment claims despite respondent's arguments that there was no credible link to religion, holding that taking claimant's case at its highest and given disputed facts, could not say no reasonable prospects of success. However, ordered deposit as claims had little reasonable prospects.
Practical note
Even where a discrimination claim appears weak and the respondent can point to legitimate explanations for the treatment, strike out will be refused if there are disputed facts and the claim cannot be said to have no reasonable prospects when taken at its highest, though a deposit order may be appropriate.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1305053/2023
- Decision date
- 5 February 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Customer Service Advisor
- Service
- 5 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No