In person For the v Mr T Draper, solicitor — 2019

The claimant brought claims including unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, notice pay, wrongful dismissal, arrears of pay, holiday pay, sex discrimination, and direct race and age discrimination. At the preliminary hearing he said he was not pursuing sex discrimination, and those claims were withdrawn. The tribunal then considered the respondent's strike-out application under rule 37(1)(a) and the authorities on strike-out in fact-sensitive cases, including Abertawe Morgannwg University Health Board v Ferguson, Balls v Downham Market High School and College, Kwele-Siakam v Co-Operative Group Ltd, Mechkarov v Citibank NA, and Mbuisa v Cygnet Healthcare Ltd.

The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal and redundancy payment claims because the claimant accepted that he had less than two years' service and therefore could not pursue those claims. It also struck out the notice pay claim, holding that the contract provided only one week's notice during probation and that this had been paid. The wrongful dismissal claim was struck out because the contract allowed the respondent to extend probation but did not require it to do so. The arrears of pay claim was struck out because the claimant accepted that he had been paid sums owing to him up to dismissal, and the holiday pay claim was struck out because he had already been paid for seven days of accrued holiday and was not entitled to further holiday that had not yet accrued.

The tribunal also struck out the discrimination allegations that someone had bagged up and returned the claimant's possessions after dismissal and that he was not paid wages from June onwards. It held that the return of possessions after termination was standard and that there was no basis for a discrimination claim on that point, and that no employee would continue to be paid after dismissal. However, it refused to strike out the remaining direct race and age discrimination allegation that Mr Watson raised performance concerns because of race and/or age. The judge said this was a central dispute of fact about Mr Watson's reasons, that there was no contemporaneous document conclusively inconsistent with the claimant's case, and that the claimant identified race and age differences between himself and two comparators who did not have performance concerns raised.

Although that race and age allegation was not struck out, the tribunal decided to make a deposit order because it considered the remaining claim had little reasonable prospect of success. It took account of the documented probation and appeal process, the claimant's lack of careful pleading and research, and his financial circumstances. The claimant was in new employment earning £2,750 net per month; the tribunal noted his rent, loan, credit card, utility, laundry, rent arrears, and support payments to his mother, and ordered a deposit of £50. No final remedy was awarded to the claimant in this judgment.