Miss Urszula Polec v [with Polish interpreter] Pars Food Ltd — 2025

At a preliminary hearing in Glasgow on 17 November 2025, Employment Judge F Eccles considered the respondent's applications to strike out the claimant's complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments and, alternatively, to strike out or seek a deposit order in relation to the victimisation complaint. The claimant appeared in person with a Polish interpreter and the respondent was represented by a solicitor.

The tribunal struck out the reasonable adjustments complaint under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 as having no reasonable prospect of success. It accepted that the claimant had been certified unfit for work from 18 April 2024 and had not identified any date by which she might be fit to return. The claimant also accepted that she had not told the respondent she was able to return at a particular time, and the tribunal noted that the adjustments she identified in relation to email and face-to-face communication arose only once she was fit to return to work. On that basis, the tribunal held that the duty to make reasonable adjustments did not arise and that there was no basis on which she could establish a breach in relation to returning to work or once back at work.

The tribunal described strike out as a draconian and exceptional step, but concluded that it was appropriate in this case because the issue could be resolved on undisputed facts and there was no suggestion that further investigation would lead to a different conclusion. By contrast, the tribunal was not persuaded to strike out the victimisation complaint. It recorded that whether the claimant's grievance was a protected act was disputed, and that the alleged detriments were also in dispute. The tribunal therefore held that it needed to hear evidence from the claimant and witnesses before deciding the merits.

Because it could not, without hearing evidence, conclude that the victimisation complaint had no reasonable prospect of success or little reasonable prospect of success, the tribunal refused both the strike-out application and the alternative deposit-order application. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.