Ms Amal Mohamed v R1) Staffline Recruitment Limited R2) Grocery Delivery E-Services UK Ltd R3) Miss Alexandra Narcisa Bledea At an Open Preliminary Hearing (Hybrid) — 2022

At this open preliminary hearing on 13 October 2022, Employment Judge Hutchinson sitting alone granted the claimant's application to amend the claim so that Miss Alexandra Narcisa Bledea could be named correctly as the third respondent. The judgment dealt with interlocutory applications only and did not determine the underlying discrimination, whistleblowing, or victimisation claims on their merits.

The second respondent's application for a deposit order was refused. The judge referred to Rule 39(1) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure and the question whether any allegation had little reasonable prospect of success. Having heard submissions, the judge concluded that the case turned on factual issues that should be decided by a full tribunal and that a deposit order was not appropriate in the circumstances.

The second respondent's costs application was also refused. Applying Rule 76, the judge was not satisfied that the claimant had acted unreasonably in originally identifying the third respondent as "Karina". The judgment records that the claimant had only a brief encounter with the third respondent, genuinely did not know her identity, and informed the tribunal once the correct name was discovered. The judge found no sufficient basis for a costs order.