Mr Z Xiao v Kate Boddy and 1 other — 2022

At the preliminary hearing on 21 June 2022, Employment Judge Smail considered the claimant's original race and sex discrimination allegations and the claimant's applications to amend. The claimant had resigned on 28 May 2021 with an effective termination date of 1 September 2021, and evidence was heard from the claimant, Ms Boddy and the claimant's line manager, Dr Alexandra Allen. The issues concerned alleged conduct by Ms Boddy between 31 March and 15 July 2021, and a University event on 8 June 2021 about gender-based violence.

The tribunal held that Ms Boddy's alleged conduct arose from her private family life and was not done in the course of employment, so there was no basis to fix the University with vicarious liability under ss.109-110 Equality Act 2010. It also held that the University conference, although focused on violence against women, did not amount to discrimination against the claimant because he was male or because of race. The judge therefore found the original claims had no reasonable prospects of success and struck them out under Rule 37(1)(a), referring to the Ezsias strike-out guidance and the Equality Act provisions considered in the reasons.

The claimant's amendment application to add victimisation based on a 16 December 2021 letter from Stephens Scown Solicitors was refused. The judge held that the letter was a reminder about the public nature of Employment Tribunal proceedings and did not amount to a prima facie detriment or victimisation, and he also noted that the claimant's children were not to be named in any event.

An amendment to add constructive unfair dismissal was also refused. The tribunal relied on contemporaneous documents showing that the claimant had already applied for another post on 18 March 2021, told his manager on 6 May 2021 that he intended to resign, and later gave notice on 28 May 2021 saying he was moving on in the best interests of his career. The judge found no identifiable breach of contract by the University and said the family dispute belonged in the family courts rather than the Employment Tribunal.