In Person v Respondent — 2018

The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from earnings claims for want of jurisdiction. It accepted that the relevant vessels were registered to the Port of Dover and that the claimant worked in Dover and English territories, but found that she was not ordinarily resident in Great Britain at the material time. The claimant said she was ordinarily resident in Lithuania, so the third requirement in s.199(7) ERA 1996 was not met. The tribunal therefore did not need to decide whether the 27 February 2018 email amounted to a dismissal for the purposes of s.95 ERA 1996.

The claimant was allowed to amend her case to add victimisation. The amendment concerned an alleged detriment in the form of the 27 February 2018 email, said to follow protected acts on 21 January 2017 and 6 April 2017. Applying the Selkent amendment principles and the cases cited on amendment and time limits, the tribunal held that the new allegation was closely related to the existing claim, that delay was not determinative, and that it could not say the proposed claim was utterly hopeless.

On the Equality Act complaints, the tribunal treated the pleaded allegations as harassment in January 2017, victimisation in February 2017, alleged detriment arising from the investigation process, and the later February 2018 correspondence. Applying s.123(3) Equality Act 2010 and the continuing-act authorities, it found a reasonably arguable basis for treating the matters as an ongoing situation or continuing state of affairs. The discrimination claims were therefore allowed to proceed to a full merits hearing, with the final limitation and just-and-equitable issues reserved for that hearing. No remedy was determined at the preliminary stage.