Mr R Sthankyia v Meggitt Aerospace Ltd — 2023

The claimant, Mr R Sthankyia, was engaged as a contractor by Meggitt Aerospace Limited between 30 January 2019 and 26 July 2019. He issued an ET1 in October 2022 alleging unlawful discrimination said to have continued since November 2017. The matter was heard on 9 March 2023 before Employment Judge Kelly sitting alone, on the respondent's application to strike out the claim under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.

The tribunal considered a standing point under section 108 of the Equality Act 2010 and did not strike the case out on that basis. The judge said that, if the claimant's asserted facts were proved, there could be a sufficiently close connection between the alleged conduct and the earlier relationship with Meggitt for section 108 to be engaged. The judge therefore treated standing as arguable and did not decide liability on that issue.

The decisive difficulty was the absence of proper particularisation. The ET1 and later correspondence did not set out with sufficient clarity the acts relied on, the dates of those acts, or the role said to have been played by Meggitt. The claimant's case was described as an alleged wide-ranging conspiracy involving multiple organisations and individuals, but he was unable to explain why they were said to be involved or how the alleged conduct was attributable to this respondent.

Applying the cautious approach to strike out discrimination claims, including Mechkarov v CitiBank and the Court of Appeal's guidance in Ahir v British Airways Plc, the tribunal concluded that the claim was too vague and ill-defined to allow the respondent fairly to answer it. The claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. No monetary remedy was awarded. The claimant indicated at the hearing that he would bring further claims, and the judge observed that such conduct could lead to adverse costs consequences and possibly a restraint order.