No attendance For the v Mrs Lydia Edgar, Solicitor — 2020

The claimant presented this claim on 23 November 2018 alleging racial harassment, direct race discrimination and victimisation against nine respondents. The tribunal noted that she had also ticked disability discrimination, but no disability allegations were contained in the claim form or the later further and better particulars. The matter formed part of a series of consolidated claims, and the claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing after a postponement application based on oral surgery was refused.

The respondent's Rule 37 application succeeded in large part. All claims against R1, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8 and R9 were struck out. All claims against R2 and R3 were also struck out except for the allegations of harassment, direct discrimination and victimisation concerning exclusion from the 2018 Christmas lunch/party and the alleged statement that the party was in November 2018; those allegations were left to a deposit order.

The reasons were procedural and pleading-based. The tribunal held that the allegations against R1, R4 and R3 about the claimant's emails being aggressive were expressions of opinion or perception and were not shown to have reasonable prospects of success as discrimination, harassment or victimisation claims. The wage-deduction issue against R2 had already been dismissed on withdrawal in claim 3 and could not be revived; the new wage-deduction and probation-related points against R5 and other new matters against R6, R8 and R9 were raised only in the further particulars, without any amendment application. The tribunal also relied on Henderson v Henderson in striking out the allegation against R3 which could and should have been brought in the earlier claim. It also held that Chanel Ltd was not the claimant's employer, so vicarious liability did not apply.