Case 2504210/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Sharkey v Mr G Davis and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2504210/2019
- Decision date
- 7 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morris
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms B Sharkey
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing was limited to the second respondent's applications to strike out the claimant's sex discrimination claim, or alternatively to require a deposit. The Tribunal decided that the hearing did not extend to any equivalent application concerning the claimant's constructive unfair dismissal claim.
The Tribunal treated the discrimination issue before it as a victimisation complaint under s.27 Equality Act 2010. It rejected the respondent's argument that the claimant had fundamentally changed her claim by providing further particulars, finding that the ET1 and further particulars could be considered together and that the further particulars had been provided in compliance with a tribunal order.
On the strike-out application, the Tribunal found that the claim was not one of the clearest cases warranting strike-out. It held that there were core issues of fact requiring oral evidence, including the context and meaning of comments allegedly made at the 3 March 2020 welfare meeting, and that the claimant's case was not conclusively disproved by contemporaneous documents. The application to strike out the victimisation claim was refused.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The Tribunal refused the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's victimisation claim under s.27 Equality Act 2010. The substantive merits of the claim were not finally determined in this preliminary hearing. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
15 references- Rule 37 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 39 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen Ltd v Wong two-stage approach
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students' Union
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Tayside Public Transport Company Ltd v Reilly
- Mechkarov v Citibank NA strike-out approach
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary detriment test
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College
- Chandhok v Tirkey
- Ahir v British Airways Plc
- Ukegheson v London Borough of Haringey
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.