Ms Nicola Poole v Travelopia Holdings Limited and 2 others — 2021

Ms Nicola Poole brought claims of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal against Travelopia Holdings Ltd and Mr Leon Brett. The tribunal recorded that she had muscular dystrophy and could only work from home, that she had been employed from 19 December 2005 until redundancy dismissal on 4 May 2020, and that ACAS early conciliation ran between 28 July 2020 and 28 August 2020 before the claim was presented on 7 September 2020. The pleaded Equality Act claims were summarised as direct discrimination under s.13, discrimination arising from disability under s.15, indirect discrimination under s.19, reasonable adjustments under s.20, harassment under s.26 and victimisation under s.27.

This hearing was only about the Respondents' application to strike out the claim, or alternatively to order a deposit. No evidence was given; the tribunal had an agreed electronic bundle and heard oral submissions. The judge noted that the particulars of claim were in narrative form and did not set out the heads of claim clearly. He said the claim was poorly drafted and lacked specificity about the acts complained of, who was involved and when they occurred, but he was not minded to strike out the claims on time grounds or for no reasonable prospect of success without hearing evidence.

On time limits, the tribunal applied the continuing act approach and asked whether the pleaded incidents were linked and whether they formed evidence of a continuing discriminatory state of affairs. It declined to decide at this stage whether the 2018 indirect discrimination allegation was out of time, saying that issue could be argued at the final hearing. The tribunal also treated strike out as a draconian step and held that this was not one of the exceptional cases warranting strike out, although it accepted the Respondent should be able to seek further information and could renew its application later. The application to strike out and the alternative deposit application were dismissed, and separate case management orders were made, including a ground rules hearing because the Claimant would need to type her answers.