In Person v Mr. D. Ludlow, Solicitor — 2022

This was a Rule 39 deposit-order hearing on 25 February 2022 before Employment Judge Wedderspoon. The claimant, Ms Severine Obertelli, had worked for Maxxton Limited from about February 2013 until 30 January 2020. The tribunal was not deciding the final merits; it was conducting a summary assessment of whether the pleaded harassment, discrimination, victimisation, constructive unfair dismissal, breach of contract and unlawful deduction claims had little reasonable prospect of success.

On the discrimination and harassment allegations, the tribunal grouped A, B, D and E as sexual harassment allegations and treated C, F, G, J and K as direct sex discrimination allegations, with L as a direct race discrimination allegation. It said the harassment allegations turned on context, while H did not on the limited material show an obvious link to sex or race. It also said C was weak, J and K were too vague and non-specific, and L, which concerned Dutch-language communication, did not appear to be direct race discrimination because language itself is not a protected characteristic. The tribunal also considered the timing of the alleged incidents, noted gaps between them and different alleged perpetrators, and said the complaints were prima facie out of time because the last specific act was said to be in August 2019 and the ET1 was presented on 28 April 2020, with little material to support a just and equitable extension.

For constructive unfair dismissal, the tribunal relied in part on the claimant's resignation letter, which it described as well structured and positive, and said this contradicted the case that there had been a repudiatory breach or final straw. For unlawful deductions, it found the bonus claim lacked evidential support and that the respondent relied on documents showing bonus payments had been made; it said the claimant had not shown that further bonus sums were properly payable under section 13 ERA 1996 and also treated the complaint as prima facie out of time. For breach of contract, the tribunal considered the respondent's documents to show pension contributions of £23,916.12 from April 2013 to January 2020 plus additional agreed pension contributions of £10,257.22 from August 2017, and it accepted the respondent's case that healthcare payments were only temporarily agreed in 2017 and 2018.

The tribunal concluded that each listed allegation or claim had little reasonable prospect of success and ordered deposits of £150 each. It took account of the claimant's means, including her new net salary of £4,753.63 per month, debts of about £35,000 and monthly outgoings of about £3,000, and said the total if all claims were pursued would be £2,250.