Mr Ryan Stackhouse v TNT UK Ltd and 6 others — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing in the linked claims and it dealt with amendment, strike-out and deposit-order applications rather than the merits of liability. The tribunal applied Selkent Bus Co. Ltd v Moore when considering the amendment requests, and said that some time-limit issues could be left to the final hearing under the approach in Galilee v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. In the strike-out and deposit-order analysis it referred to Rule 37 and Rule 39, together with authorities including Cox v Adecco, Anyanwu, Ezsias, Balls, Mechkarov, Ahir, Hemdan and Van Rensburg.

The claimant was allowed to amend Claim 1 to add direct race discrimination allegations against Gary Barber about the weight given to his evidence, the presence of a notetaker, and believing Steve Brown. He was also allowed to add race-related harassment allegations against Gary Barber arising from the 6 November 2018 investigation meeting and further meetings on 9, 13 and 16 November 2018. The tribunal allowed a grievance-based victimisation amendment and related detriments, and allowed a whistleblowing amendment only in part, limiting it to disclosures and detriments during the investigation and disciplinary process from 14 November 2018 onward. The proposed direct race discrimination amendment against Paul Roberts was refused, and the more historic whistleblowing allegations and unrelated detriments were refused.

On strike out, the tribunal struck out Claim 1 in so far as it was pursued against Nick Link, struck out the breach of contract complaint, and struck out Claim 2 in so far as it was made against Fedex Limited because the claimant had never been employed by that entity. It refused to strike out the Working Time Regulations complaint. It held that direct race discrimination against Gary Barber and victimisation against Colin Gibson had little reasonable prospects of success and should be the subject of deposit orders, with the amount to be determined after means representations. Direct race discrimination and race-related harassment claims against the third, fourth, fifth and sixth respondents were struck out. The respondent did not pursue strike-out of the unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims against the first respondent in Claim 2, and no substantive liability decision or award was made in this order; the case was listed for further case management on 2 August 2023.