Case 4110423/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Burgyan v Nexus Workforce Ltd t/a Flow Logistics — 2022
- Case reference
- 4110423/2021
- Decision date
- 22 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms B Burgyan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 21 April 2022, Employment Judge A Kemp considered the respondent's Rule 37 application to strike out Ms B Burgyan's claims because she had not complied with earlier orders for particulars and supporting documents. The claimant appeared in person from Hungary, and the respondent was represented by its director, Mr J Meehan. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had not fully answered the ordered questions, but considered each claim separately when deciding whether strike out was proportionate.
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant accepted that she did not have two years' continuous service. The tribunal held that, even assuming employee status, it therefore had no jurisdiction to hear an unfair dismissal claim. The breach of contract claim was also struck out. The claimant had not properly set out the basis on which she said she was an employee, and she accepted that the contractual relationship was with a limited company she had set up, which the tribunal treated as inconsistent with employee status.
The tribunal refused to strike out the discrimination claims, which it described as claims under sections 13 and 26 of the Equality Act 2010 on the protected characteristics of race and sex. It took into account that the claimant was a party litigant, that English was her second language, that she had sought help from an Edinburgh University law clinic, and that she had provided some detail in her January 2022 document even though it did not answer every question. Applying the overriding objective and the public interest in discrimination claims being determined on their facts, the tribunal held that strike out would not be proportionate. It added that if an indirect discrimination claim under section 19 was still before it, it would have struck it out for lack of pleaded basis, but it considered that such a claim was not before the tribunal. No monetary remedy was assessed because this judgment dealt only with the strike-out application.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim under Rule 37 because the claimant accepted in discussion that she did not have two years' continuous service, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal struck out the breach of contract claim because the claimant did not specify a contractual basis for employee status and accepted that the contractual relationship was with a limited company she had set up, which the tribunal treated as inconsistent with employment status. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal refused to strike out the race discrimination claims described in the judgment as claims under sections 13 and 26 of the Equality Act 2010. This was a procedural ruling only, and no merits finding was made. | Other | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal refused to strike out the sex discrimination claims described in the judgment as claims under sections 13 and 26 of the Equality Act 2010. This was a procedural ruling only, and no merits finding was made. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Rule 37 strike out
- Rule 2 overriding objective
- HM Prison Service v Dolby
- Hassan v Tesco Stores Ltd
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students' Union
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College
- Cox v Adecco
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.