Case 2204787/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Kaler v 1 Barabara Quartey 2 Zoe Wilson 3 Zoe Poullos 4 Bora Anvi 5 Anna Macey 6 Insights Esc Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2204787/2019
- Decision date
- 12 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge H Grewal Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Kaler
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs K Kaler brought the present claim against five individuals and her former employer, alleging post-termination disability discrimination, detriments for protected disclosures, breach of contract and unauthorised deductions from wages. She also complained about R1, R2 and R5's conduct in the earlier July 2019 tribunal hearing, including alleged last-minute changes, demands and questioning techniques. The tribunal treated those hearing-conduct complaints as disability discrimination and/or victimisation allegations arising out of the earlier proceedings.
The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the complaints about the earlier tribunal proceedings because the principle of immunity from suit applied to what was said and done in the course of judicial proceedings. Even if immunity had not applied, the judge held those complaints would have had no reasonable prospect of success because section 108 of the Equality Act 2010 did not extend to conduct at a later tribunal hearing, long after the employment relationship with R6 had ended.
For the remaining allegations, the tribunal held that the claims against R6 were barred by res judicata / cause of action estoppel because they repeated matters already dealt with in the first case, and that the protected disclosure detriment allegations were also too late and could and should have been raised earlier so that Henderson v Henderson applied. The disability discrimination and victimisation allegations against the individual respondents were out of time, there was no basis for extending time as just and equitable, and the tribunal said the issue of whether Ms Kaler was disabled at the material time had already been decided in the earlier proceedings. It struck out the claims against R1 to R4 and ordered Ms Kaler to pay £3,500 in costs plus £780 for R5's preparation time, after finding the claims scandalous, vexatious and unreasonable under rules 37 and 76 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Covered the post-termination disability discrimination allegations and the complaints about R1, R2 and R5's conduct in the July 2019 tribunal hearing. The tribunal held the hearing-conduct complaints were protected by immunity from suit and, in any event, would not fall within s.108 Equality Act 2010; the remaining disability discrimination allegations were out of time, barred or had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Any victimisation claim against the individual respondents was held to be out of time and without a just and equitable basis to proceed; the tribunal said the issue had already been dealt with or could and should have been raised earlier and struck out the claims. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The protected disclosure detriment allegations were held to be an abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson, out of time, and without a reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaint was held to be barred by res judicata / cause of action estoppel in relation to R6 from the first claim; the judgment recorded no separate merits determination. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unlawful deduction from wages complaint was held to be barred by res judicata / cause of action estoppel in relation to R6 from the first claim; the judgment recorded no separate merits determination. | Other |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,280
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- immunity from suit
- s.108 Equality Act 2010
- s.110 Equality Act 2010
- res judicata / cause of action estoppel
- Henderson v Henderson
- Rule 37 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 76(1) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.