R Morton (counsel) For the v Respondent — 2023

The claimant brought a claim of unfair dismissal against the first respondent and a disability discrimination claim against both respondents. This judgment dealt only with the respondents’ application to strike out the claim against the second respondent, S Flannagan, on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The tribunal noted the claimant’s case had been clarified in a document filed on 4 December 2023, but that document identified no allegations against the second respondent. The claimant’s representative said disclosure had not yet taken place and the second respondent’s involvement might later become apparent, but the tribunal found that no facts at all had been identified in support of the discrimination claim against him.

Applying Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, the tribunal referred to Anyanwu and Cox v Adecco Group UK & Ireland, and noted the general caution against striking out fact-sensitive discrimination claims before evidence is heard. It nevertheless held that the time had passed for the claimant to set out any claim against the second respondent, and rejected reliance on Timis v Osipov because there was no clear allegation of individual wrongdoing. The claim against the second respondent was therefore struck out. The judgment does not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal claim against the first respondent or the discrimination claim against the first respondent.