Miss D Pron and Mrs I Pron v Menzies Distribution Ltd: 4106963/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 October 2021 |
| Citation | 4106963/2020 |
| Date | 20 October 2021 |
| Published date | 23 November 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Race Discrimination |
E.T. Z4 (WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
5
Case No: 4106963/2020 and another
Preliminary Hearing held remotely on 14 October 2021
Employment Judge A Kemp
10
Miss D Pron First Claimant
Represented by:
Mr S Smith,
Solicitor
15
Mrs I Pron Second Claimant
Represented by:
Mr S Smith,
Solicitor
20
Menzies Distribution Ltd Respondent
Represented by:
Mr O Holloway,
Counsel
25
Instructed by:
Ms G Patti,
Solicitor
30
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
1. The Tribunal grants the claimants’ application to amend their claims
in respect of the Further and Better Particulars provided on 8 April
2021 in so far as it refers to claim one, and claims two and three on
the protected characteristic of race, reserving whether claims two
35
and three are in the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for later
determination.
2. The Tribunal refuses the claimants’ application to amend their claims
in respect of the Further and Better Particulars provided on 8 April
4106993/2020 and another Page 2
2021 in so far as it refers to claims two and three on the protected
characteristic of pregnancy.
REASONS
5
Introduction
1. This was a Preliminary Hearing held to consider applications made by both
parties. The respondent sought a strike out of the second and third claims
set out by the claimants in their Further and Better Particulars, and the
claimants sought to amend their claims to include those Particulars.
10
2. The parties were each represented. An interpreter Ms Magdalena Moore
attended, and translated all that was said into Polish as the two claimants
also attended. The proceedings were conducted remotely.
3. The Notice of Hearing for the hearing before me referred only to the
determination of an application for strike out made by the respondent. The
15
claimants had however by email dated 11 July 2021 proposed that their
Further and Better Particulars be treated as an application to amend, and
that was in a sense a defence to the application for strike out.
4. After discussion with the representatives for the parties it was agreed that
the appropriate application to consider initially was that for amendment
20
made by the claimants, and only then consider if any strike out was sought.
The hearing was therefore converted to one for amendment of consent of
the parties. It was heard remotely by Cloud Video Platform as that Notice
stipulated.
5. The claimants initially wished to give evidence but after they were provided
25
with time to give instructions to their solicitor, that was not sought and
matters proceeded by way of submissions as is normal in such
applications.
Background
To continue reading
Request your trial