Mr C Tchapdeu v Unipart Group — 2018

On 15 May 2018 Employment Judge R Clark, sitting alone at Leicester, heard the respondent's application to strike out the amended victimisation allegations pleaded under the heading "Victimisation Claim against Steve Willey". The judge noted that this was not an evidence hearing, and that the claimant had already had most earlier claims struck out as out of time, with only the flexible-working related matters continuing under a deposit order.

The tribunal held that most of the pleaded matters were not reasonably capable of amounting to detriments. Requests for the full names of comparators, statements made in the response, and disclosure-related complaints were treated as ordinary incidents of contested litigation and matters capable of being managed through the tribunal's case management powers. The one exception was the respondent's position that it would not correspond with the claimant about grievances already before the tribunal, which the judge considered capable of being a detriment.

Even so, the claim was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant's case depended on showing what passed between the respondent and its solicitor when instructions and legal advice were exchanged, but the judge held that those communications were protected by litigation privilege. There was no suggestion of fraud or dishonesty that would justify going behind privilege, and the claimant accepted that without access to those documents he could not prove the alleged discriminatory reason.

The judge applied the strike-out jurisdiction under rule 37, the overriding objective, and the authorities cited on fact-sensitive discrimination claims and vexatious claims, including Anyanwu, Ezsias, Jeremiah, Barker and the privilege authorities. The judgment states that the allegations were peripheral to the underlying proceedings, speculative, and disproportionate to litigate through a closed disclosure exercise, so the amended victimisation claim was struck out.