In Person For the v Respondent — 2024

At the public preliminary hearing on 3 December 2024, Employment Judge Brown considered the claimant’s application to add protected disclosure detriment and victimisation complaints, and the respondent’s application to strike out the pleaded race and sex discrimination claims. The claimant had worked for the respondent as a waiter from 2 October to 31 December 2023. The tribunal recorded that, by the time of the hearing, the claimant said he was not alleging discrimination because of his race or sex, but rather because of the way he carried out the role as a waiter.

The tribunal refused permission to amend to add the protected disclosure detriment and victimisation complaints. Applying Selkent and the limitation principles in s.123 Equality Act 2010 and Galilee, it found the proposed amendment introduced substantial new facts and new causes of action, was first intimated more than seven months after employment ended, and was out of time. The tribunal also found it would not be just and equitable to extend time, noting that the claimant knew how to bring tribunal claims and knew about time limits, and that his lack of knowledge of legal terminology and his language skills did not stop him setting out the relevant facts earlier.

The tribunal then struck out the race and sex discrimination claims under rule 37(1)(a), applying the high threshold described in Balls. It held those claims had no reasonable prospects because the claimant accepted that he was not saying the respondent treated him badly because of race or sex. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim in its entirety. No monetary remedy was awarded.