Mr J Bagram v Croner Group Limited — 2020

This was a reserved preliminary hearing judgment dealing with strike out or deposit in relation to constructive unfair dismissal, jurisdiction for direct age discrimination, and admissibility of without prejudice or protected conversation material. The claimant alleged breaches of implied terms including trust and confidence, cooperation and support, and a duty to redress grievances. He had resigned on six months' notice on 8 May 2019 and then resigned with immediate effect on 19 July 2019, relying on the respondent's alleged failure to appoint an independent grievance manager as the final straw.

The tribunal declined to strike out the constructive unfair dismissal claim under Rule 37, but found under Rule 39 that the claim had little reasonable prospects of success. It held that the claimant was restricted to his pleaded case, that he had arguably waived earlier alleged breaches by resigning only on six months' notice, and that he had little real prospect of proving that the alleged final straw was anything other than an innocuous act by the respondent. The claim was allowed to proceed only subject to a deposit order, with the amount to be decided after written representations on the respondent's application for a £1,000 deposit.

The direct age discrimination claim was struck out for want of jurisdiction. The tribunal found that no pleaded act of age discrimination or continuing act occurred on or after 2 July 2019, the earliest date for the claim to be in time, and that the claimant's 19 July resignation was not pleaded as age-related less favourable treatment. The most recent pleaded discrimination issue related to February 2019, and the claim was therefore at least approximately four months out of time.

The tribunal declined to extend time under s.123 Equality Act 2010. Applying the authorities it cited, it noted the length of delay, the absence of evidence explaining the delay, the claimant's ability to correspond during the period, his access to legal advice, the likely effect on the cogency of evidence, and its view that the merits of the age discrimination claim were weak. The respondent's application to exclude without prejudice and s.111A material was granted because the tribunal found the settlement discussions were privileged and that there was no unambiguous impropriety.