Mr E Saleh v Singletrack Systems Limited — 2023

At this preliminary hearing, the respondent applied to strike out the victimisation and disability-related harassment claims and to obtain a deposit order in respect of the constructive unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims. The tribunal applied Rule 37 and referred to the usual authorities on strike-out, including Tayside Public Transport Co Ltd (t/a Travel Dundee) v Reilly, Ezsias, Anyanwu, Mechkarov, HM Prison Service v Dolby, and Chief Constable of Norfolk v Coffey. It also relied on the earlier preliminary hearing judgment that the claimant was not disabled at the material time and that the respondent did not have actual or constructive knowledge of AHD before 26 June 2020.

The disability-related harassment claim was struck out. The alleged conduct was the claimant being placed on a PIP from 29 July 2020 to 25 September 2020 and, on the pleaded case, being harassed and encouraged to leave. The judge held that the claimant had never pleaded a claim based on perceived disability discrimination; his case remained that he was actually disabled when he was not. Because a perceived-disability claim had not been brought or amended in, the harassment claim could not succeed.

The victimisation claim was also struck out. The alleged detriment was the commencement and operation of the PIP process, which ended on 25 September 2020, while the ET1 was not presented until 15 September 2021. The tribunal treated this as a free-standing, historical claim and concluded that any argument for a just and equitable extension of time was very unlikely to succeed, given that the only realistic explanation was the claimant's mistaken belief that he was disabled and that the discrimination claims were in time.

The tribunal refused the respondent's application in relation to constructive unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. It accepted that, if proved, some of the alleged matters could amount to breaches of contract and that the allegations had to be considered cumulatively rather than in isolation. The judge therefore did not strike out those claims or order a deposit, and they were left to proceed to the full merits hearing. No substantive merits findings or monetary award were made in this judgment.