In person For the v Respondent — 2018

The claim was heard by Employment Judge Warren at Bury St Edmunds on 19 October 2018. The claim had originally been presented on 20 May 2015, rejected for non-payment of fees, and later reinstated following Unison. By the time of this hearing it had been served on the respondent, and the claimant appeared in person without having prepared a witness statement. The judge had before him a CAB outline of the case, a paginated bundle, the respondent's skeleton argument, and an email from the claimant giving further particulars.

The tribunal struck out the disability discrimination claim. The claimant had ticked disability discrimination on the ET1, but had also ticked that she did not have a disability. The judge noted that there was no pleaded case beyond a bare assertion of disability discrimination, no application to amend, and that any proper disability discrimination case would in any event have been hugely out of time. The only additional material he identified was an occupational health report dated 5 June 2015 referring to depression and anxiety and suggesting that the circumstances probably qualified the claimant as disabled under the Equality Act 2010.

The respondent sought a deposit order in relation to unfair dismissal, but that application was refused. The judge set out the background relied on for that application: the claimant's arrest on suspicion of murder, the fact that she was never charged, the delayed disclosure to the respondent, her suspension on return to work, the disciplinary dismissal for gross misconduct, and the unsuccessful appeal. The claimant's case was that she had disclosed the arrest, albeit late, and that there were mitigating circumstances, problems with the notes and investigation, bias, and an unfair appeal listing. The tribunal concluded that it could not say the unfair dismissal claim had little reasonable prospects of success and that it needed to be heard.

The claimant's maternity leave claim and her claim under the Part-Time Worker Regulations were dismissed upon withdrawal. No remedy was awarded because no substantive claim succeeded and the judgment did not record any monetary relief.