Case 3329218/2017 · Employment Tribunal

Mr S Keen, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2018

Case reference: 3329218/2017
Decision date: 14 November 2018
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Laidler Appearances
Venue: Bury St Edmunds

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr S Keen, Counsel For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the preliminary hearing on 21-22 August 2018, Employment Judge Laidler heard the respondents' applications to strike out the claims or, alternatively, order deposits. The claimant withdrew the unfair dismissal claim at the outset and accepted that she had not been an employee after September 2013. The tribunal dismissed the strike-out application, refused a deposit order, granted leave to amend so the claimant could rely on the "Dear John" letter as a protected act, and made case management orders.

The tribunal held that it could not decide at that stage whether the discrimination complaints were out of time, whether they formed a continuing act under section 123 Equality Act 2010, or whether a fair trial remained possible without hearing evidence. It cited Hendricks, Aziz, Anyanwu, Ezsias and Chandhok when explaining the cautious approach to strike out in discrimination cases, and also treated the first four items in feint type on the Scott Schedule as background rather than discrete acts.

The live claims were therefore allowed to proceed to a full hearing. The tribunal noted, however, that the sex discrimination case was not yet clear where the claimant relied only on female comparators, and it ordered her to explain the legal basis for those allegations. It also recorded that the provenance of the "Dear John" letter could not be determined at that stage and that any findings about the protected act, the alleged course of conduct, and the merits of the claims would have to be made later.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Withdrawn at the outset of the preliminary hearing; the claimant accepted that she had not been an employee after September 2013.	Withdrawn	—	—
Race discrimination	The respondent's strike-out and deposit applications were refused. The tribunal held that the time-limit and continuing-act issues could not be resolved at this stage without hearing evidence.	Other	Race	—
Sex discrimination	The claim was allowed to proceed, but the tribunal said the claimant had to clarify the legal basis for sex discrimination where she relied on female comparators and noted that section 14 Equality Act 2010 had not been brought into force.	Other	Sex	—
Victimisation	Leave to amend was granted so the claimant could rely on the "Dear John" letter as a protected act; the substantive victimisation claim was not finally determined at this hearing.	Other	—	—
Harassment	The harassment allegations remained live and were not finally determined; the tribunal refused the strike-out and deposit applications.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

9 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.