Case 2303382/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Messi v Change, Grow, Live and others — 2024
- Case reference
- 2303382/2024
- Decision date
- 11 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Evans Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Messi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard seven claims together and struck out the first six under rule 37(1)(a) and (b). It found that Ms Messi's employment with Change, Grow, Live began on 18 March 2024, that she last attended work on 15 April 2024, and that the claims were brought over a very short period against CGL and a number of individual employees. The judge relied on Ms Messi's extensive prior tribunal history, including earlier interim relief decisions that had described similar applications as vexatious.
The first six claims were found to be vexatious and, in parts, scandalous because they repeated overlapping allegations with little particularity, were often directed at individual respondents without explaining their role, and were accompanied by correspondence the judge said tended to escalate rather than resolve matters. The pleaded issues included race, disability and sex discrimination, equal pay, victimisation, harassment, whistleblowing, and pay-related complaints. The unfair dismissal allegations in the fourth, fifth and sixth claims depended on an asserted dismissal on 2 May 2024, but the judge found there was little basis for saying Ms Messi had been dismissed then because her employment continued until 22 July 2024.
The seventh claim, presented on 22 July 2024 after the actual dismissal, was not struck out. The tribunal held that it had only little reasonable prospect of success and made a rule 39 deposit order of £300 after Ms Messi declined to give oral evidence about her means. On the protected disclosure aspect, the judge found little prospect of showing a qualifying disclosure in the public interest or that it was the principal reason for dismissal; on the trade union and right-to-be-accompanied complaints, the judge considered the respondent's disciplinary process and the earlier adjournment relevant. The claimant's application to strike out the respondents' responses was refused.
Claims and outcomes
14 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Race discrimination was pleaded in the first, second, third, fifth and sixth claims; all were struck out with the first to sixth claims. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Disability discrimination, including complaints about reasonable adjustments, risk assessments and occupational health referral, was pleaded in the first, second, third, fifth and sixth claims; all were struck out. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | Sex discrimination was pleaded in the first, second, third, fifth and sixth claims; all were struck out. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Equal pay | The first claim expressly alleged equal pay, with a comparator said to be Dominic Metzner; it was struck out with the first to sixth claims. | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation allegations were pleaded repeatedly across the first to sixth claims, including allegations of retaliation for raising concerns; they were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Harassment |
Legal tests applied
13 references- rule 37(1)(a) and (b)
- rule 39
- Balls v Downham Market High School & College
- Bennett v Southwark London Borough Council
- ET Marler Ltd v Robertson
- Attorney General v Barker
- Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James
- Van Rensburg v Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames
- Adams v Kingdom Services Group Ltd
- Caryl v Governing Body of Manford Primary School
- H v Ishmail
- Chandhok v Tirkey
- s.43G(2) ERA 1996
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.