Sorrell Miss Laura Docherty v Respondent — 2017

On 11 August 2017 the tribunal heard the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's claims of pregnancy and maternity discrimination, sex discrimination, holiday pay, redundancy pay and notice pay. The respondent argued that the claims were time-barred, had no reasonable prospects of success, had not been properly specified, and had not been actively pursued. The claimant did not attend, but the tribunal proceeded in her absence under Rule 47 after attempts were made to contact her; she later telephoned the tribunal to say she had recently been in hospital for a gall bladder operation.

The tribunal recorded the claimant's further specification sent after the 18 May 2017 preliminary hearing. That account included allegations that chairs were removed because she and another pregnant employee would not be able to sit, that she was told in April 2016 that if she had to go to hospital again she should not come back, that she had discussed maternity leave and returning to work, and that she was told on 27 June 2016 and again on 18 July 2016 that there was no job for her to return to. It also noted her claim for holiday pay, her reference to redundancy pay and notice pay, and the respondent's position that the critical date of termination was unclear. The tribunal observed that the claimant had stated in the ET1 that employment ended on 27 February 2017.

Applying the authorities it cited on strike out and deposit orders, including the high threshold for striking out where central facts are disputed, the tribunal dismissed the respondent's application. It held that the claimant had largely complied with the earlier order, that the central facts remained in dispute, and that a fair hearing was still possible. The tribunal declined to make a deposit order at that stage because the claimant was absent and her ability to pay had not been properly explored, but it ordered further clarification on when and why she contacted ACAS and on the redundancy pay point, and said the case should proceed to final hearing once the outstanding information was provided.