Automated Summary
Key Facts
The claimant, Sadia Asim, presented a race discrimination claim against TSB Bank plc in May 2024. During a Preliminary Hearing on 23 September 2024, she added six complaints alleging discrimination on grounds of race and sex. The Employment Tribunal (Judge M A Macleod) granted her application to amend the claim, allowing complaints 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 to proceed, but struck out complaint 3 (being kept late at work) due to lack of discriminatory basis. The claimant, who is unrepresented and for whom English is a second language, cited misunderstanding the ET1 form requirements and mental health struggles as reasons for not initially including all complaints. The case is scheduled for a full Hearing from 14–16 January 2025.
Issues
- The respondent sought to strike out the claimant's complaints for lacking a reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal rejected the strike-out for all complaints except complaint 3, which was struck out due to insufficient evidence linking the alleged incident (being kept late at work) to discrimination on the grounds of race or sex. The remaining complaints were allowed to proceed to the merits hearing.
- The tribunal considered whether to grant the claimant's application to amend her claim, which was submitted out of time. The claimant added six complaints related to discrimination on the grounds of race and sex. The tribunal found that allowing the amendment was just and equitable, citing minimal prejudice to the respondent and the claimant's lack of legal knowledge and health issues at the time of submission.
Holdings
- The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear all complaints in the case. The Employment Judge confirmed that the jurisdictional requirements are satisfied, allowing all complaints to be considered during the upcoming Hearing on 14 January 2025.
- The respondent's application for strike-out is granted only in relation to complaint 3. Complaints 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 are allowed to proceed to the Hearing. The Tribunal found that complaint 3 lacks a reasonable prospect of success as it does not establish a basis for discrimination on the grounds of race or sex.
- The claimant's application to amend her claim is granted. The Tribunal found that allowing the amendment is just and equitable despite it being out of time, as the prejudice to the claimant would be greater than the respondent. The claims relate to a short timeframe and involve similar individuals and issues, enabling the respondent to defend them without significant additional resources.
Remedies
- The respondent's application to strike out the claimant's case was granted only for complaint 3. The remaining complaints (1, 2, 4, 5, and 6) are allowed to proceed to the Hearing on 14 January 2025.
- The Employment Tribunal affirmed its jurisdiction to hear all the claimant's complaints.
- The claimant's application to amend her claim has been granted by the Employment Tribunal.
Legal Principles
- The Tribunal considered the burden of proof for granting amendments, weighing factors like the nature of the amendment, time limits, and balance of hardship. The claimant's late amendment was allowed as it was deemed just and equitable despite statutory time limits.
- The Tribunal applied principles of equity and finality in litigation, balancing the claimant's prejudice against the respondent's rights to ensure fair proceedings.
- The standard of proof for strike-out applications was evaluated, requiring claims to have no reasonable prospect of success. The respondent's strike-out succeeded only for complaint 3, as others required factual determination.
Precedent Name
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore
Judge Name
- M A Macleod
- Employment Judge Sutherland
Passage Text
- It is my conclusion, therefore, that the respondent's application for strike out succeeds only in relation to complaint 3, and that the remaining claims... should be allowed to proceed.
- Accordingly, I consider that to the extent that the application to amend is late, it is just and equitable in all of the circumstances to allow it to proceed.
- The prejudice to the claimant, in losing out on the right to pursue these additional complaints, would be considerably greater than that to the respondent.