Claimant v 22 Hotel Management Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant confirmed at the hearing that he was not alleging discrimination because of his race, but rather because of the way he carried out his role as a waiter. The tribunal struck out the claim as having no reasonable prospects of success because the claimant agreed the respondent did not subject him to any treatment because of his race.
The claimant confirmed at the hearing that he was not alleging discrimination because of his sex, but rather because of the way he carried out his role as a waiter. The tribunal struck out the claim as having no reasonable prospects of success because the claimant agreed the respondent did not subject him to any treatment because of his sex.
Amendment application refused. The claim was a substantial amendment pleading new facts and a new cause of action, brought more than 7 months out of time. The tribunal found it would not be just and equitable to extend time, as the claimant was aware of time limits and could have included these facts in his original claim. The claimant also confirmed he was not actually alleging detrimental treatment because of his complaints.
Amendment application refused. This was a substantial amendment pleading new facts and a new cause of action, brought substantially out of time (first intimated on 16 August 2024, over 7 months after employment ended). The claimant confirmed he was not alleging detrimental treatment because he complained but wanted to highlight poor hygiene standards. There was therefore little hardship to him in refusing the amendment and significant prejudice to the respondent.
Facts
The claimant worked as a waiter for the respondent luxury hotel and restaurant in Mayfair from 2 October to 31 December 2023. He filed a tribunal claim on 20 December 2023 alleging race and sex discrimination, but told an earlier preliminary hearing judge he had not been discriminated against because of race or sex but because of the way he carried out his role as a waiter. At a preliminary hearing on 16 August 2024, he sought to add claims of victimisation and protected disclosure detriment relating to emails sent in December 2023 complaining about hygiene standards, though he confirmed he was not alleging detrimental treatment because he complained but simply wanted to highlight poor standards.
Decision
The tribunal refused the amendment applications as they were substantial amendments pleading new facts and causes of action brought substantially out of time (over 7 months late) and it was not just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal then struck out the original race and sex discrimination claims as having no reasonable prospects of success because the claimant himself confirmed he was not alleging treatment because of race or sex.
Practical note
A claimant who concedes they were not treated badly because of a protected characteristic cannot maintain discrimination claims, and late amendment applications will be refused where the claimant was aware of time limits and had opportunity to include the claims originally.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2217709/2023
- Decision date
- 3 December 2024
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- waiter
- Service
- 3 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No