Miss Sarah Taylor v Altegra Integrated Solutions Limited OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2023

Miss Taylor was employed by Altegra Integrated Solutions Limited as a service controller from May 2016 until she resigned with immediate effect on 29 September 2021. The case came before an open preliminary hearing on 2 March 2023, but the claimant did not attend and had not complied with earlier case management directions to provide a schedule of loss, agree a bundle, or exchange written submissions. The tribunal therefore considered strike-out under Rule 37, including the grounds of no reasonable prospects of success, non-compliance with tribunal orders, and lack of active pursuit.

The tribunal struck out the constructive unfair dismissal claim. It held that the pleaded breaches were unlikely to be factually correct or legally sufficient: there was no requirement in law or ACAS guidance for a person at an investigator meeting to be accompanied or to call witnesses, the 'one person's word against another' point did not show unfairness, and there was no evidence that the claimant had properly requested interview notes. Even if the alleged events had occurred, the tribunal found it inherently unlikely that the respondent had acted in a way calculated or likely to destroy trust and confidence, because the evidence showed an attempt to resolve a workplace dispute by mediation and then investigation, with no disciplinary action taken against the claimant.

The tribunal also struck out the direct pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim. Applying Cox v Adecco, it found that the claim did not begin to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on grounds of pregnancy or maternity. The claimant had not shown a detriment, there was no evidence of less favourable treatment compared with others, and there was no evidence that any treatment was because of her maternity leave other than timing. The tribunal noted that the claimant had herself said she was unsure whether what she alleged amounted to discrimination, that the issue was not raised at the time or in her resignation letter, and that the claim appeared to be an afterthought.

In addition to the lack of merit, the tribunal relied on the claimant's failure to comply with orders and to engage with the proceedings. It considered that the non-compliance was serious, that the default was hers alone, and that no lesser sanction than strike-out was appropriate. The judgment therefore records no remedy award, because both claims were struck out before a substantive merits hearing.