Ms E Thornley v Leisure Employment Services Ltd — 2024

This judgment did not decide the substantive sex discrimination allegations. It dealt with the claimant's application to revoke or vary the earlier judgment that had dismissed her sex discrimination claims after she withdrew them at the telephone preliminary hearing on 25 January 2024. The tribunal recorded that the claimant later said her father had misunderstood what was happening and that he did not believe the harassment-related allegation was being withdrawn.

The claimant's further and better particulars sought to reintroduce a claim framed as harassment related to sex under section 26 Equality Act 2010. She said the case concerned being required to buy and wear make-up and false eyelashes, and the tribunal summarised the respondent's objection that this was a new claim introduced after withdrawal, outside time, and not included in the case management order.

Applying rule 70 and the principles in Outasight VB Ltd v Brown, the tribunal held that the key question was whether the withdrawal had been arguably equivocal. It found the withdrawal was not equivocal: the claimant's representative had confirmed withdrawal, the list of issues did not refer to harassment related to sex, the later allegations were described as no more than an amplification of the original ET1 facts, and there was no suggestion that any withdrawn claim other than sex discrimination had been mistaken.

The tribunal concluded that the withdrawal had been unequivocal and that, following Kahn v Heywood and Middleton PCT, it had no jurisdiction to reinstate a claim once unequivocally withdrawn. It therefore dismissed the reconsideration application under rule 72(1) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.