Mrs D Clay v Oasis Dental Care Limited — 2023

Mrs D Clay brought a s.26 Equality Act 2010 harassment claim about an email sent by Dawn Gray on 9 November 2022 containing the words about "Stockholm syndrome and the desire to make an abuser like you". She said the comment was offensive and related to her PTSD, which she relied on as the protected characteristic. The Tribunal also noted that the ET1 did not mention the 8 November meeting, so a claim based on that meeting would require amendment.

Applying Rule 39(1) and the authorities in Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal, Pemberton v Inwood and Tees Esk and Wear Valley NHS Foundation Trust v Aslam, the Tribunal was not persuaded that the email could not amount to unwanted conduct capable of meeting the statutory effect test. It did find, however, that Mrs Clay would have little reasonable prospect of showing that the comment was related to her PTSD/disability, and observed that if the claim were framed by reference to Stockholm syndrome itself as the protected characteristic, that would also have little reasonable prospect of success. It therefore made a deposit order of £350.

Mrs Clay’s unfair dismissal claim arose from her dismissal on 22 December 2022. The Tribunal had previously issued a strike out warning and, at the hearing, Mrs Clay accepted that she did not have two years' continuous service. It found nothing in the claim that made it exceptional and held that s.108 ERA 1996 meant the claim had no realistic prospect of success, so it was struck out under Rule 37(1).