Miss U Carrigan v Generator Hostels Limited and 1 other — 2022

This was a preliminary hearing on the respondents' applications to strike out, or alternatively to obtain deposit orders in respect of, the claimant's breach of contract and direct sex discrimination claims. The claimant said she had accepted employment on the basis that the role was work from home, whereas R1 said the written contract stated that her normal place of work was its headquarters and that she refused to attend for an induction on 15 April 2021. R1 said it withdrew the offer after what it treated as a repudiatory breach; the claimant said the withdrawal itself was a breach of contract.

On the strike-out application, the tribunal refused to strike out the breach of contract claim because there was a clear factual dispute about what the claimant had told R2 about working from home during the pandemic, what R2 had told R1, whether the claimant expressly refused to attend R1's office, and whether the contract was a standard pre-pandemic contract or needed to be read in light of the pandemic and lockdown conditions. The tribunal said those matters should be determined at a full merits hearing, with evidence given orally and tested in cross-examination.

The tribunal also refused to strike out the direct sex discrimination claim. It accepted that discrimination claims are only to be struck out in the clearest of cases and noted that the claimant had not been legally represented at an earlier case management hearing. The claimant relied on alleged less favourable treatment in relation to work-from-home arrangements and on Rajan Sharma as an actual comparator, with the tribunal noting that RS's contract contained an express minimum work-from-home arrangement of three days per week. The tribunal considered that the comparator issue and the factual basis of the alleged discrimination required evidence at the final hearing.

Deposit orders were also refused for both claims. The tribunal held that there was sufficient conflict on the facts and no proper basis for doubting the likelihood of the claimant being able to establish the essential facts of her case. It therefore directed that the matter should proceed to the already-listed final hearing by video.