in person For the v Respondent — 2024

The original ET1 presented on 16 January 2023 ticked boxes for unfair dismissal, race and disability discrimination, notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of pay, but gave no particulars. At the hearing it was common ground that the claimant began employment on 18 July 2022 and was expressly dismissed on 3 February 2023, with his earlier resignation otherwise due to take effect on 18 March 2023.

The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because it was presented before the dismissal took effect and before notice had been given, so section 111(3) Employment Rights Act 1996 did not assist. The tribunal also noted that the claimant did not have the two years' continuous employment required by section 108 ERA 1996. The breach of contract / notice claim was also dismissed because the tribunal's contract jurisdiction under the 1994 Extension of Jurisdiction Order only covers matters arising or outstanding on termination, and the ET1 was lodged before termination.

On race and disability discrimination, the tribunal held that ticking the relevant boxes in the ET1 was not enough: there were no pleaded allegations of the acts complained of, and no causal link to race or disability. The later documents filed on 24 March, 1 May and 3 May 2023 were described as lengthy and confused rather than clear amendment applications, although they suggested possible complaints about reasonable adjustments at the 26 October 2022 suspension meeting. Applying rule 37, Anyanwu, Ahir, Chandhok, Selkent, and the need for clear pleading in Bryant, the tribunal refused permission to amend because the proposed claims were out of time, insufficiently identified, and would cause hardship to the respondent.

The tribunal did not finally determine the unparticularised wages and holiday pay claims. Instead, it made unless orders requiring the claimant to provide particulars by 29 April 2024, failing which those claims would be dismissed without further warning.