Mrs P Al Said v Bath Spa University PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2021

At a preliminary hearing on 11 December 2020, Employment Judge Midgley considered Mrs P Al Said's application that her claim should not be dismissed after she had emailed on 30 June 2020 saying that she no longer wished to proceed and formally requested withdrawal. The claim form presented on 7 March 2020 included unfair dismissal and discrimination complaints based on age, religion or belief, race, disability, marriage or civil partnership and sex. The tribunal also dealt with the claimant's request for an adjournment so that she could obtain further medical records and, if possible, an expert report about her mental state at the time of withdrawal.

The tribunal held that the 30 June 2020 email was a clear, unambiguous and unequivocal withdrawal for the purposes of rule 51. Applying the objective approach in Segor and Campbell, it said there was nothing in the wording to suggest that the claimant was not making a rational decision, and it was not necessary to enquire further into her reasons. The tribunal noted that the claimant and her husband had both explained at the time that the withdrawal was because the stress of the proceedings was affecting her health and they wanted to pursue the matter in the public domain rather than in the tribunal.

The claimant's 9 July 2020 request to reinstate the claim, and later submissions referring to depression, work-related stress and suicidal thoughts, did not alter that conclusion. The tribunal found that she had not reserved the right to bring a further claim and that rule 52 did not make it unjust to dismiss the claim. Applying Ako, it held that she had intended to abandon the proceedings and that allowing fresh proceedings would undermine finality and duplicate the same issues, delay and cost. The application to prevent dismissal was rejected and the claim was dismissed.