In person For the v Ms Cho, litigation consultant — 2025

This was an open preliminary hearing on the respondent's application for strike out and/or deposit orders. The tribunal recorded that the claimant worked for the respondent from 1997, was not paid after refusing to return to work in September 2021 because of Covid-related workplace concerns, and later received a gratuity payment for service up to his 60th birthday.

The tribunal struck out the protected disclosure detriment claim, finding that the return-to-work instruction was given to locally engaged employees generally and predated the claimant's safety complaints, and that the proposed alternative desk was an accommodation rather than a detriment. It also struck out the race discrimination claim about a house in Brunei because the housing scheme was not an employment benefit, and struck out race and age discrimination claims about pay and promotion because the identified comparators were not at the same grade and the promotion complaints were out of time.

The tribunal did not strike out the section 44 health and safety detriment claim, although it described the claim as appearing weak on its face and declined to make a deposit order. It also declined to strike out the retirement benefit claim because the basis of that claim was unclear and ordered the claimant to provide further particulars.