Mr A Miller v Represented by:15 Mrs L Miller – Relative University of Edinburgh — 2021

This was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's applications to strike out the claimant's victimisation claim under Rule 37(1)(a) or, alternatively, to make a deposit order under Rule 39(1). The claimant, Mr A Miller, had been employed by the University of Edinburgh from April 2013 until 30 June 2020 on a guaranteed-hours contract, with 20 hours a week since 2015. The evidence before the tribunal was that the respondent did not offer him any work from 6 April 2019 until his dismissal, and the respondent accepted that it had not followed normal redundancy procedures, its own employment policies, or provided written reasons, an appeal, or a P45.

The claimant's case was that the respondent stopped offering him work after his mother submitted a grievance on 5 April 2019 alleging sex discrimination, and that he was then dismissed because the respondent believed he supported, or would support, her complaint. The tribunal held that section 27(2)(c) of the Equality Act 2010 is wide enough to cover general support, including moral support, for a person who has complained of discrimination. It was not persuaded that the claimant's case was defeated by the fact that he had not himself given evidence or pursued his own Equality Act rights.

The tribunal also rejected the respondent's submission that the available documents conclusively disproved the claimant's account. It found that there were factual disputes central to the case, including why work stopped being offered and why the employment ended, and that those disputes could not properly be resolved without oral evidence at a final hearing. For that reason, the strike-out application was refused.

For the same reasons, the tribunal refused to make a deposit order. It considered that the victimisation allegation required a full hearing before its merit could be assessed, and that the claimant should not be required to pay a deposit where the reason for his dismissal remained in dispute. The judgment also records that the holiday pay element of the case had already been withdrawn and dismissed by order on 23 February 2021, so the time-bar issue for that claim did not need to be decided at this hearing.