Case 3316075/2021 · Employment Tribunal

in person For the v Respondent — 2023

Case reference: 3316075/2021
Decision date: 16 February 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge George Appearances

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

in person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At an open preliminary hearing, Employment Judge George considered the respondent's applications to strike out or, alternatively, seek deposits in a claim arising from the respondent's Covid-19 workplace measures. The claimant had worked as a warehouse operative and resigned on 19 July 2021. The tribunal applied the rule 37 strike-out jurisdiction sparingly, referring to Anyanwu, Ezsias and Ahir, and treated the live issues as indirect discrimination on grounds of religion or belief and constructive unfair dismissal.

The tribunal struck out only the part of the religion-or-belief claim that was said to arise from the claimant being Christian. It found that the claimant could not identify any article of faith linking Christianity to the respondent's requirements for face coverings, disinfectant cleaning and periodic Covid testing, and concluded there was no reasonable prospect of showing that Christians generally were put at a particular disadvantage compared with non-Christians.

The remaining part of the religion-or-belief claim, based on the claimant's Covid-sceptic beliefs, was allowed to proceed. The tribunal summarised those beliefs by reference to the claimant's objections to Covid testing, face masks and disinfecting surfaces, applied the Grainger criteria, and held that it could not say at this stage that the belief lacked the necessary cogency or that there was no reasonable prospect of proving a particular disadvantage. It also held that justification was fact-sensitive and could not be determined on a strike-out application.

The constructive unfair dismissal claim also continued. The tribunal referred to the resignation letter, which described a culmination of restrictions and poor management and identified the reintroduction of restrictions as the final straw. It held that the reasons for resignation and the alleged breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence required findings of fact and could not properly be decided without a trial. The tribunal cited Malik v BCCI when describing the trust and confidence test.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Religion or belief discrimination	Struck out under rule 37(1)(a) to the extent the claim was based on the claimant being Christian. The tribunal held there were no reasonable prospects of showing that Christianity was connected to the alleged disadvantages from face coverings, disinfectant cleaning or periodic Covid testing, or that Christians generally were put at a particular disadvantage compared with non-Christians.	Struck out	Religion or belief	—
Religion or belief discrimination	The strike-out application was refused for the part of the religion-or-belief claim based on the claimant's Covid-sceptic beliefs. The tribunal considered the alleged belief potentially capable of protection under the Grainger criteria and held that particular disadvantage and justification were fact-sensitive issues that could not be finally resolved at this stage.	Other	Religion or belief	—
Constructive dismissal	The respondent's strike-out application was refused on the constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal held that the reasons for resignation, the timing of the disciplinary action and whether the respondent's conduct breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence were matters that required findings of fact at a final hearing.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

10 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.