Ms A Pierscionek v Szampion Limited — 2020

Ms A Pierscionek started work for Szampion Limited as a shop worker on 19 March 2018. In her ET1 she described incidents in November 2018 and on 23 December 2018 and said she had been intimidated by a co-worker, accused of being aggressive and stealing, and wrongfully dismissed. The judge noted that an unfair dismissal claim could not proceed because she had less than two years' service, but held that the form on its face pleaded wrongful dismissal and also included a section 26 Equality Act 2010 harassment claim. The claimant also referred to unlawful deduction of wages, breach of implied contractual duties and failure to provide written particulars of employment.

The respondent denied that the claimant had been dismissed and said she resigned on 23 December 2018. It explained the late response by saying the papers had been passed to an insurance broker and the deadline was overlooked. Applying the approach in Kwik Save Stores Ltd v Swain and Pendragon Plc v Copus, the judge found the delay resulted from a process failure and was not a reasonable excuse, although it was not deliberate. The judge considered that there was an arguable defence on the resignation and payment issues, but the harassment allegation was unparticularised and the respondent had no proper opportunity to answer allegations of which it knew little.

The application for an extension of time to present the response was therefore granted. The tribunal ordered the claimant to particularise the harassment claim by identifying the protected characteristic, alleged perpetrators, the act relied on, the date and how the act related to the characteristic. It also directed amended grounds of response, a list of issues, disclosure and witness statements, and listed the case for a three-day full merits hearing including remedies in September 2020. No substantive liability or award was decided in this judgment.