Mrs Shelley-Anne Aitken v Respondent — 2021

At this preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered the Respondents' application to strike out the remaining claims. Lisa Kennedy did not attend the hearing or the two previous case management hearings, had given only a sparse response to the order for further particulars, and her claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(d); the judge also said the deficiencies would have justified strike-out under Rule 37(1)(c). The judgment also notes that the sexual orientation discrimination claim related only to Ms Kennedy.

For Shelley-Anne Aitken and Danielle Batchelor, the tribunal accepted that they were litigants in person and should not be judged as lawyers, but found that their responses to the order did not answer every question precisely. Looking at the ET1s and further particulars as a whole, however, the judge held that most of the claims could still have a fair hearing if the parties used an agreed detailed list of issues. The disability discrimination claims, including the associative disability allegations, were not struck out.

Two exceptions were made. The tribunal struck out the part of the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s103A ERA 1996 that depended on a protected disclosure allegedly made to a third party, because the particulars did not identify what was disclosed, to whom, or how the recipient fitted within the statutory categories. It did allow the claim to proceed on the alleged disclosure to the First Respondent, which the judge said was sufficiently identifiable. The victimisation claims under s27 Equality Act 2010 were also struck out because the claimants had not clearly identified the protected act and had conflated it with protected disclosure. No compensation was decided at this hearing.