Ms C Rolandi v Represented by Mr J Tinston Solicitor Crieff Hydro Ltd — 2021

This was a preliminary hearing only. The respondent sought to strike out the claim for want of jurisdiction, for no reasonable prospects of success, and alternatively sought a deposit order. The claimant's case, as described in the ET1 and later agenda/note of argument, was that she was given less than 24 hours' notice to vacate staff accommodation for repairs, that the respondent knew of her mental health condition, that she was harassed, and that accommodation deductions continued after she left the room.

The tribunal rejected the jurisdiction argument. It held that the provision of accommodation to employees was a 'benefit, facility or service' within s.39(2)(b) Equality Act 2010 because the right to stay was tied to employment, the accommodation agreement and contract of employment cross-referenced each other, and the arrangement ceased when employment ended. The tribunal therefore held that the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction, and it did not accept that the matter belonged only in the civil courts.

The tribunal also held that the agenda and note of argument could be treated as further particulars of claims already pled, or alternatively as a permissible amendment. It applied the approach in Chandhok v Tirkey, Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore, Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster Ltd, Vaughan v Modality Partnership, and the balance of hardship approach. It took account of the fact that the ET1 was drafted by the claimant without legal advice and said the additional material did not introduce substantially different areas of enquiry or cause prejudice or delay.

Applying the high threshold for strike out identified in Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union, the tribunal refused to strike out the disability discrimination claims, including the section 15 claim, the reasonable adjustments claim, and the harassment claim, and it also refused to strike out the wage-deduction claim. It refused a deposit order, directed the respondent to lodge any response within 21 days, and noted that disability status remained an outstanding case management issue. Paragraph 73 contains an internally inconsistent sentence about the section 15 claim, but the operative order and later reasoning make clear that strike-out was refused.