Mr P O’Callaghan of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant brought a constructive dismissal claim and direct discrimination claims pleaded as race and religion or belief. The tribunal held that the constructive dismissal claim had no reasonable prospect of showing it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time under s.111(2) ERA 1996, noting that the claimant's own evidence was that she was not considering a claim until the 2021 reference issues arose. Counsel for the claimant conceded the strike-out application on that claim.

The tribunal refused to strike out the direct discrimination claims overall. Applying the continuing act and time-limit authorities, the judge was not satisfied it was clear the claimant could not establish conduct extending over a period, but the allegations were said to fall into four groups with significant gaps, limited overlap of alleged perpetrators, and a large proportion of verbal incidents from earlier years. The judge accepted the claimant's case at its highest for the preliminary application and treated the discrimination allegations as continuing, or potentially capable of being extended in time, in part.

For allegations 1 to 6, the tribunal found little reasonable prospect of success on the continuing-act and just-and-equitable arguments and ordered deposits of £5 for each allegation, taking account of the claimant's limited means and hand-to-mouth financial position. Allegations 7 to 12, which included the 2020 and 2021 matters involving Mr Goodman, were not struck out on time grounds and no deposit order was made for them; the judge also said allegations 11 and 12 had more than little reasonable prospect of success on the merits. The total deposit exposure recorded by the order was £30.