Case 1801533/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Suez Recycling & Recovery Kirklees Limited — 2018
- Case reference
- 1801533/2018
- Decision date
- 26 March 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal first held that the part of the 7 March 2018 meeting that followed the break was a without prejudice settlement discussion and that the recording of that part of the meeting was inadmissible. It found no unambiguous impropriety in the negotiations and decided, applying the Berg guidance, that Employment Judge Eeley could fairly continue to determine the later preliminary issues without recusal.
On the effective date of termination, the tribunal held that employment ended on 26 March 2018, not 7 March 2018. The 7 March meeting concluded with the claimant being given time to consider his options and there was no clear dismissal or resignation communicated at that point. The claimant's letter of 26 March was treated as the first communication that the employment should come to an end, so the unfair dismissal claim presented on 22 March 2018 was premature and was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
On the second ET1, paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 9 of the grounds of complaint were struck out. Paragraph 2 was treated as a direct race discrimination allegation rather than indirect discrimination, but it was insufficiently particularised, partly duplicative of the earlier proceedings and out of time, and the tribunal refused to allow a late amendment. Paragraph 6 victimisation and paragraph 7 harassment were also struck out because the pleaded case lacked the necessary particulars and any amendment would have been out of time. Paragraph 9 was struck out insofar as it pleaded breach of contract or other standalone claims that the claimant could not clearly identify. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 8, including holiday pay, paternity pay and remedy items, were left for later determination.
The respondent's costs application over the claimant's non-attendance on 14 May 2018 was refused. The tribunal considered the failure to check email regularly to be arguably unreasonable, but it was not satisfied that a costs award should be made given the claimant's means and the potential hardship to him and his dependants.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was presented on 22 March 2018 before the tribunal found the effective date of termination to be 26 March 2018, so it was premature and the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Paragraph 2 of the second ET1 was treated as a race/ethnicity discrimination complaint rather than indirect discrimination. The tribunal held that it was insufficiently particularised, partly duplicated allegations in the first proceedings, and was out of time; a late amendment was refused. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | Paragraph 7 of the second ET1 was a harassment allegation said to concern derogatory comments in March/April 2014 about the claimant's wife and child. The tribunal said it lacked sufficient particulars and any amendment would have been out of time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | Paragraph 6 of the second ET1 was pleaded as victimisation. The claimant identified grievances in 2014 and 2017 as protected acts, but he could not properly specify the detriments, and the tribunal refused to permit a late amendment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Paragraph 9 of the second ET1 was struck out insofar as it pleaded breach of contract or other standalone claims. The claimant could not clarify the case he was advancing, and the tribunal also noted that some aspects were outside its jurisdiction. | Struck out |
Legal tests applied
8 references- without prejudice rule
- unambiguous impropriety exception
- Berg subjective/objective test
- s.97 ERA 1996 effective date of termination
- HM Prison Service v Dolby two-stage strike-out test
- Ezsias disputed-facts principle
- Selkent amendment principles
- British Coal v Keeble just and equitable test
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.