Mr A Eadie v Ebury Partners UK Ltd — 2022

This was an open preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Heath dealing with the respondent's applications to strike out, or alternatively seek a deposit order against, the claimant's Equality Act claims. Mr A Eadie had conceded that he was and is not disabled. The tribunal therefore considered whether his section 13 and section 15 claims, both framed around perceived disability, should be removed or restricted before a final hearing.

The tribunal summarised the background as follows: the claimant started work with Ebury Partners UK Limited on 10 May 2021, collapsed on that day, and was discharged from hospital the following day with a diagnosis of transient ischaemic attack. The respondent terminated his employment by telephone on 17 May 2021 and gave written reasons on 27 May 2021, referring to FCA, parliamentary and SFO developments concerning Greensill and the associated reputational risk. The claimant's case was that the real reason for dismissal was perceived disability, and that the later handling of his appeal, Growth Shares and subject access request was also discriminatory.

On the section 13 claim, the tribunal held that the case should not be struck out. It accepted that the claimant was not relying only on the bare fact of dismissal, and noted that the tribunal would need to hear oral evidence from the decision-makers to resolve the competing explanations for dismissal. Although the respondent pointed to the claimant's own and his wife's communications describing a transient condition and a likely swift recovery, the tribunal considered that those points did not provide a clear or obvious basis for strike out. It also held that the same approach applied to the later appeal, share and subject access request allegations, which were said to follow on from the dismissal.

On the section 15 claim, the respondent argued that the claim was unsustainable because section 15 applies only to a disabled person and the claimant was not disabled. The tribunal accepted that this raised a forceful legal point, but treated it as a novel issue with potentially far-reaching consequences and considered it better dealt with alongside the facts at a final hearing. The tribunal therefore refused to strike out the section 15 claim and also refused a deposit order, concluding that the claims did not have little reasonable prospect of success.