Case 3200757/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Maxine Machin v HSBC Bank plc — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200757/2021
- Decision date
- 18 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barrett Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Maxine Machin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent applied to strike out, or alternatively for a deposit order on, two factual allegations within the Claimant's claim: a March 2018 allegation about being told there was no role for her to return to after illness, and a November 2019 allegation about duties being removed after she was registered as disabled. The allegations were framed as direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability and disability-related harassment.
The Tribunal refused strike-out of both allegations. In relation to the March 2018 allegation, the Tribunal considered it unlikely that the allegation would form part of a continuing act or that a just and equitable extension would be granted, but held that the strike-out threshold was not met because those issues were fact-sensitive and should be determined by the tribunal hearing the evidence.
The Tribunal found the threshold for a deposit order was met for the March 2018 allegation, but did not make the order at the hearing because further information was needed about the Claimant's ability to pay. For the November 2019 allegation, the Tribunal held that there was a reasonable prospect of establishing that it formed part of a continuing act, and that neither the strike-out nor deposit order threshold was met.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment did not determine the substantive disability discrimination allegations. It refused the Respondent's strike-out application for the March 2018 and November 2019 allegations. For the March 2018 allegation, the Tribunal considered that the threshold for a deposit order was met, but did not make the deposit order on the day because further information about the Claimant's ability to pay was required. | Other | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The two factual allegations were framed in part as disability-related harassment. The judgment did not determine the substantive harassment allegation; it refused strike-out, and treated the March 2018 allegation as meeting the threshold for a deposit order subject to further enquiries about ability to pay. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules
- Mechkarov v Citibank NA [2016] ICR 1121
- Rule 39(1) Employment Tribunal Rules
- Hemdan v Ishmail [2017] ICR 486
- s.123(1)(a) Equality Act
- s.123(3)(a) Equality Act 2010
- Aziz v FDA [2010] EWCA Civ 304
- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan [2018] ICR 1194
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.