Miss A Khamis v And Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd Held by CVP on 19 April 2021 — 2021

Miss A Khamis presented her ET1 on 7 August 2019 alleging disability discrimination, age discrimination and unpaid holiday pay arising out of her short period of employment with Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd. The case then went through a series of directions about disability evidence, proposed amendments and the possible addition of further respondents. By the hearing on 19 April 2021, the respondent had accepted that the claimant was disabled by reason of scoliosis, although the tribunal noted that any other disability issue would in any event have been more appropriate for a full hearing.

The tribunal refused the claimant's proposed amendment application. Applying Chandhok v Tirkey and Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore, it held that the proposed 18-claim matrix was not properly formulated, had been pursued late, was substantially out of time, and would prejudice the respondent. The claimant had also failed to comply with an earlier direction to serve a draft amended claim. A schedule of loss had been advanced on a Vento basis at £18,000, but no award followed.

Turning to the original ET1, the tribunal found that the disability allegations were not properly particularised because the pleaded incidents did not identify a sufficient causal link between disability and the treatment complained of. The age allegation was also held to be too insubstantial: when asked, the claimant's representative moved between direct and indirect age discrimination, and the only concrete material was an alleged remark that older staff would soon be gone. The dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and had not pleaded any automatic unfair dismissal ground, including health and safety. The holiday pay complaint was struck out with the rest of the case, and the tribunal concluded under Rule 37 that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success.