Mr George Ferguson-Haizel v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's application that parts of the claim should be struck out or made subject to a deposit because they were barred by rule 52, res judicata, or abuse of process. The tribunal confined its decision to that issue and did not decide the merits of the remaining claims.

The claimant had earlier brought and withdrawn a claim which included race discrimination, holiday pay and arrears of pay, and which the tribunal considered could also be read as including whistleblowing detriment and victimisation detriment complaints. Because that earlier claim had been dismissed on withdrawal under rule 52, and because the claimant had not reserved the right to bring a further claim, the tribunal held that the holiday pay, unpaid wages, and detriment complaints short of dismissal could not proceed.

The tribunal held that complaints about dismissal were different from the earlier complaints about suspension, investigation and other detriments. It found that the direct race discrimination complaint about the choice of summary dismissal, the whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996, any victimisation dismissal claim under s.27 Equality Act 2010, and the ordinary unfair dismissal claim could proceed, with no determination of their merits at this stage.