Case 2301428/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Miller-Tuitt v Swale Heating Limited [First Respondent] John Roche [Second Respondent] — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301428/2021
- Decision date
- 2 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shore Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Miller-Tuitt
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the video preliminary hearing on 27 September 2022, Employment Judge Shore considered three linked claims brought by Mr C Miller-Tuitt against Swale Heating Limited and John Roche. The tribunal corrected the respondents' names, held that the claim against Mr Roche in the First Claim was barred by cause of action estoppel, and struck out the Second Claim in its entirety. Any proceedings against Claire French were dismissed because no ACAS certificate had been obtained against her.
The claimant's attempt to add direct discrimination because of religious belief and/or harassment related to religious belief in the Third Claim was refused. The tribunal said it was a new matter relating to 2020 with no explanation for why it had not been brought earlier, and it concluded that the respondent would be more prejudiced by allowing the amendment than the claimant would be by refusing it. Because religious belief was the only new matter in the Third Claim, the remainder of that claim was struck out as an abuse of process.
The tribunal struck out the pregnancy/maternity discrimination claim as misconceived because the claimant accepted he had never been pregnant and was not a woman. When he said the real complaint was about paternity pay, he could not clearly identify the child's date of birth. The claims for unauthorised deductions of wages were also struck out because the claimant could not explain their basis. By contrast, the race discrimination claim was clarified sufficiently to be understood and was not struck out at that stage; the remaining live claims were unfair dismissal and direct race discrimination against Swale Heating Limited.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant said he had been constructively unfairly dismissed after resigning on 6 April 2021. The tribunal held the claim against John Roche in the First Claim was barred by cause of action estoppel and struck out the Second Claim; the unfair dismissal claim remained live only against Swale Heating Limited. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal accepted the race discrimination case was sufficiently clarified to be understood and refused to strike it out at this stage. The claimant alleged failure to promote, remarks about dreadlocks, and promotion of white colleagues. | Other | Race | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Struck out as misconceived because the claimant accepted he had never been pregnant and was not a woman. He later said the complaint was really about paternity pay and could not clearly identify the child's date of birth. | Struck out | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The effective application to add direct discrimination and/or harassment because of religious belief was refused because it was a new matter from 2020 with no explanation for the delay. As religious belief was the only new matter in the Third Claim, the remainder was struck out as an abuse of process. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant said he had not been paid overtime in November 2020, August 2020 and earlier, but could not explain the basis of the claim. The tribunal struck it out as having no reasonable prospect of success. |
Legal tests applied
4 references- cause of action estoppel
- issue estoppel
- abuse of process
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.