Miss H Kalaya v Wimbledon Broadway Specsavers Limited — 2019

The claim before Employment Judge Martin concerned the grievance appeal outcome and process after the termination of the claimant's employment. Following an earlier detailed case management order from Employment Judge Crosfill, the claimant was required to identify the detriments complained of, who was responsible, the dates of the acts or omissions, the protected characteristics relied on, and the facts said to support an inference of discrimination. The ET1 was described as pleading discrimination on the grounds of age, race, disability, sex, and religion or belief, together with money claims, and the case was being pursued as direct discrimination under sections 13 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010.

The claimant's written response and oral submissions did not answer those questions. She continued to refer to her earlier claims and to other material, including a subject access request and allegations about the ACAS Code, but she did not identify a clear act in the grievance appeal process that was said to be because of a protected characteristic. The tribunal found that the claim remained unclear in material respects and that no discernable cause of action had been identified.

Relying on the principle in Chandock v Tirkey that the ET1 sets out the essential case, Judge Martin held that the claimant had been given several opportunities to explain the claim and had not done so. The tribunal therefore struck the claim out on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. No monetary award was made.