Ms S Burton v Blair and West Limited — 2023

Ms Burton presented claims including age discrimination, race discrimination, notice pay and commission payments, but this judgment dealt only with the race discrimination claim. The claimant did not attend the public preliminary hearing on 24 August 2023. The tribunal proceeded in her absence under Rule 47 after attempts were made to contact her by telephone and no prior indication of attendance had been received.

The tribunal noted that Employment Judge Sweeney had previously listed the matter to consider whether the race discrimination claim should be struck out or made subject to a deposit order. The claimant had been ordered to provide further particulars. She identified four alleged detriments: being told to leave immediately on resignation, colleagues not being told she was leaving, not being allowed to say goodbye to friends, and being shouted at in the boardroom with a comment about security escorting her out.

The tribunal accepted, for the purpose of the application, that those events occurred. It nevertheless found that the claimant's own case did not provide evidence of any causal link between the alleged treatment and race. The claimant said in her further particulars that there was nothing to say the treatment was because of her race or appearance, that she could not really provide evidence to uphold the claim, and that she was not pursuing it, although she did not withdraw it. She also did not identify an actual comparator.

Applying the strike-out threshold in Rule 37(1)(a), the tribunal said discrimination claims should only be struck out in the clearest cases, but held that this was an exceptional case because the claimant's own position was that there was no evidence to support the claim. It concluded that the race discrimination claim had no reasonable prospect of success at trial and struck it out. The claimant's age discrimination, notice pay and commission claims were said to be unaffected and were listed to proceed to a later full hearing.