Ms M Love v Vascutek Limited t/a Terumo Aortic — 2025

Ms M Love brought claims of direct race discrimination and harassment, relying on race as colour (black) and nationality (Brazilian). At the preliminary hearing on the respondent's strike-out and deposit-order application, the tribunal considered the claimant's further and better particulars and the parties' contemporaneous documents. The tribunal applied rule 38 and rule 40 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 and approached the strike-out question on the basis that the claimant's case should be taken at its highest.

The tribunal granted the respondent's application in part and struck out allegations 3(f), (g), (j) and (l) in both the direct discrimination and harassment complaints. It held that allegation (f) was wholly lacking in specification, that (g) was unclear because the claimant did not dispute she had been given the same parking instruction as other staff, that (j) repeated the same lack of detail, and that (l) did not reflect the claim the claimant said she wished to pursue at the hearing. Those parts of the claim were struck out because they had no reasonable prospect of success.

The tribunal refused to strike out the remaining allegations, finding material factual disputes about the alleged dismissal for working abroad, the report to HR, the 13 May 2024 Teams exchange, the comment to stop faffing, the records of discussion, the complaint about not being allowed to contribute to notes, the cancellation of carried-over leave, and the recall-training issue. It accepted that the contemporaneous documents supported the respondent's case on some points, including that the claimant had told her manager she was in Charing Cross when she was in fact in Greece, but concluded that the disputed issues had to be resolved at a final hearing. The respondent's application for a deposit order was refused.