Mr B King v Gemalto Thales UK Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Tayler |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 08 March 2024 |
Judgment approved by the court for handing down King v Thales DIS UK Ltd
© EAT 2024 Page 1 [2024] EAT 34
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EAT 34
Case No: EA-2021-001119-RS
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 8 March 2024
Before :
HIS HONOUR JUDGE JAMES TAYLER
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
MR B KING Appellant
- and –
THALES DIS UK LTD
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LYDIA SEYMOUR (instructed through Advocate) for the Appellant
ZAC SAMMOUR (instructed by Astons Legal) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 13 February 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Judgment approved by the court for handing down King v Thales DIS UK Ltd
© EAT 2024 Page 2 [2024] EAT 34
SUMMARY
Practice and Procedure
Mr King brought a first claim alleging unfair dismissal. It was dismissed because it was submitted
out of time. Mr King brought a second claim alleging sex discrimination. A Preliminary Hearing was
held to consider whether the second claim also included a claim of disability discrimination and
whether the claim of sex discrimination was an abuse of process. Mr King is vulnerable and has
mental health conditions. The Preliminary Hearing was not conducted in a manner that was unfair.
The Employment Judge correctly concluded that the first claim did not include a claim of disability
discrimination. The Employment Judge erred in law in his approach to abuse of process which
resulted in the dismissal of the sex discrimination claim, and was the primary reason for the refusal
of the application to amend the second claim to add a claim of disability discrimination. The matter
was remitted to the Employment Tribunal.
Judgment approved by the court for handing down King v Thales DIS UK Ltd
© EAT 2024 Page 3 [2024] EAT 34
HIS HONOUR JUDGE JAMES TAYLER
Writing this Judgment
1. Mr King has learning difficulties that makes it difficult for him to understand complicated
documents. I told Mr King that I would write my judgment in ordinary language. Mr Zahra and Ms
Seymour may also be able to help explain my decision to Mr King.
2. I will have to deal with some legal arguments that are complicated and refer to some points
of law by looking at some legal cases. Some of the cases use complicated wording. I will keep things
as simple as I can. However, it is important that I explain my reasoning sufficiently for all those who
may need to read this judgment.
Introduction
3. Mr King has brought three claims against Thales. Mr King used to work for Thales. This
appeal is about the second claim. On 2 August 2021, Employment Judge Reed dismissed the second
claim. Employment Judge Reed decided that:
3.1. the second claim did not include a claim of disability discrimination
3.2. Mr King could not add a claim of disability discrimination to the second claim, and
3.3. the claim of sex discrimination in the second claim should be dismissed because
bringing the claim was an abuse of process
People involved in the appeal
4. Mr King was represented by Lydia Seymour at this appeal. Ms Seymour is a barrister who
represented Mr King under a scheme called Advocate. Advocate provides help free of charge. I am
grateful to Ms Seymour for her careful and skilful argument.
5. Mr King was also helped by his friend Mr Zahra.
6. Mr Zahra also helped Mr King at the hearing before Employment Judge Reed on 2 August
2021.
7. Zac Sammour is the barrister who represented Thales at this appeal hearing.
8. I am Judge Tayler. I am a judge of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Judges of the
To continue reading
Request your trial