Case 6000010/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Bailey v Aviva Employment Services Limited Heard at Sheffield ET — 2024
- Case reference
- 6000010/2022
- Decision date
- 14 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain Members
- Venue
- Sheffield ET
- Panel members
- Ms R Hodgkinson, Mr D Fields
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Bailey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered the respondent's application under Rule 37(1)(b) to strike out the claimant's claims because of the manner in which proceedings had been conducted. It found that the claimant's conduct before the Tribunal on 16, 18 and 19 January 2024 was scandalous and unreasonable, and that a fair trial of the action was no longer possible.
The Tribunal nevertheless held that it was not proportionate to strike out the claim. The respondent's strike-out application was refused, preserving the claimant's right to continue the proceedings in a new trial window.
The Tribunal also considered the claimant's application dated 20 February 2024 for Employment Judge Brain to recuse himself. That application was refused.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment determined the respondent's strike-out application and the claimant's recusal application, not the merits of this public interest disclosure claim. The strike-out application was refused. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment determined the respondent's strike-out application and the claimant's recusal application, not the merits of this race discrimination claim. The strike-out application was refused. | Other | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment determined the respondent's strike-out application and the claimant's recusal application, not the merits of this sex discrimination claim. The strike-out application was refused. | Other | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment determined the respondent's strike-out application and the claimant's recusal application, not the merits of this unlawful deduction from wages claim. The strike-out application was refused. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment determined the respondent's strike-out application and the claimant's recusal application, not the merits of this Working Time Regulations claim. The strike-out application was refused. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Rule 37(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 37(2) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 2 overriding objective
- Bolch v Chipman
- Chidzoy v British Broadcasting Corporation
- De Keyser Limited v Wilson
- Arrow Nominees Inc v Blackledge
- Logicrose Limited v Southend United Football Club Limited
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.