Ms R Mehta And 1st v KRF Services (UK) Ltd 2nd Respondent: Mr C Poos 3rd Respondent: Ms B Collins Heard by: CVP — 2021

At the remote preliminary hearing on 3 March 2021, the Tribunal considered territorial jurisdiction over the claim against the Luxembourg-based 2nd Respondent, the Claimant's applications for deposit orders against the 1st and 2nd Respondents, and the 3rd Respondent's strike-out application. It proceeded on agreed facts that the Claimant worked in England, the 2nd Respondent periodically travelled to London for business, and the 3rd Respondent was the sole director of KRF UK for a period. The case history also records a complaint under s1(4)(k) and s2(1) ERA 1996, but this judgment did not determine that complaint.

Applying Lawson v Serco, Ravat, Hottak and the related territorial jurisdiction authorities, the Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the claim against the 2nd Respondent. It relied on the direct connection between the alleged comments and decisions and the Claimant's UK employment, the 2nd Respondent's regular business activity in London, his meetings with the Claimant, and the small family-office structure. The Tribunal also said that, if the alleged 'man's world' comment was made, it could potentially amount to instruction, causation or inducement under s111 Equality Act 2010.

The Tribunal refused deposit orders against both the 2nd Respondent and the 1st Respondent. It held that the 2nd Respondent's jurisdiction challenge was not one with little reasonable prospect of success, and that it would be inappropriate to use a deposit order to fetter any future reconsideration or appeal. As to the 1st Respondent, it found the evidence about whether the comment was 'man's world' or 'white man's world' was equivocal, the Claimant had not heard the comment directly, and the ambiguity was a matter for cross-examination at the full merits hearing.

The 3rd Respondent's application to strike out the claim against her succeeded under Rule 37(1)(a). The Tribunal accepted the Claimant's case at its highest but held that there was no evidence to infer that the 3rd Respondent herself had been influenced by race or sex, and that merely opposing the redundancy decision or reluctantly implementing it did not amount to aiding or abetting under ss111-112 Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal noted that the Claimant could still pursue her sex and race discrimination claims against the 1st and 2nd Respondents at a full merits hearing. No monetary award was made.