Case 4107779/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Gardner v Trip Air Ticketing (UK) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4107779/2020
- Decision date
- 7 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sutherland
- Venue
- Chambers in Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Gardner
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a 4 March 2022 chambers hearing on the respondent's application to strike out. The claimant, Jennifer Gardner, had presented complaints of constructive unfair dismissal, race discrimination, notice pay, holiday pay, breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages. The tribunal had already seen detailed written answers from the claimant on 12 April 2021 and a Scott Schedule on 14 May 2021, but the respondent later sought further specification after the 13 October 2021 order. The claimant did not provide that further specification and, in response to the strike out warning, said she had had no opportunity to discuss or elaborate on the Scott Schedule, considered the application premature, and was unaware of any outstanding information.
The tribunal refused strike out under Rule 37(1)(b), (c) and (e). It held that the claimant's response did not show that she lacked detail of her own claim, but rather that she considered she had already provided enough detail. Although the ET1 was described as wide-ranging and insufficiently focused, the tribunal said that, as a litigant in person, she could not be expected to provide focused pleadings without clear direction. It found that her conduct did not amount to proceedings that were scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious, and that strike out would be too draconian where the less punitive response of further case management might resolve the specification problems.
On the non-compliance issue, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had not complied with the 13 October 2021 order despite reminders. It identified a need for further clarification on the practical meaning of items 3 and 8, the identity of the comparator in item 6, and the detail sought for items 11, 21, 23 and 12. However, it concluded that a fair hearing was still possible and that there had not been unreasonable delay, because the claim had been raised in 2020 and a final hearing was reasonably expected in 2022 after further case management. The application for strike out was therefore refused, but the claimant was warned that continued failure to focus and specify the complaints could ultimately lead to strike out of all or part of the claim.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The substantive constructive unfair dismissal claim was not determined on the merits. The tribunal refused the respondent's application to strike out and directed that the claim could proceed, subject to further case management. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The race discrimination claim, pleaded on the basis of being non-Chinese, was not determined on the merits. The tribunal refused strike out and said the complaints required further specification rather than termination. | Other | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaints, including the pleaded notice pay and stock options issues, were not decided on the merits. Strike out was refused. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim for accrued but unused holiday pay was not determined on the merits. Strike out was refused. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unlawful deduction from wages complaint was not determined on the merits. Strike out was refused. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- Rule 37(1) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- Rule 2 overriding objective
- Bolch v Chipman
- Bennett v London Borough of Southwark
- De Keyser Ltd v Wilson
- Weir Valves and Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage
- Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James
- Attorney General v Barker
- Itulu v London Fire Commissioner
- Peixoto v British Telecommunications PLC
- Riley v The Crown Prosecution Service
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.