Ms Ashanti Amponsah v The Estate of Dr O’Connell and Beatrix Schmidt: 2203032/2019
| Judgment Date | 06 October 2020 |
| Citation | 2203032/2019 |
| Published date | 19 October 2020 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Race Discrimination |
Case No: 2203032/2019
10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Ms Ashanti Amponsah
First Respondent: The Estate of Dr O’Connell
Second Respondent: Beatrix Schmidt
Heard at: London Central On: 16 September 2020
Before: Employment Judge Wisby (Sitting Alone via CVP)
Representation
Claimant: Mr M Shephard, counsel
First and Second Respondents: Mr A Barnes, counsel
JUDGMENT
The respondents’ application for strike out is denied.
Employment Judge Wisby
Date 06/10/2020
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON
06/10/2020
......................................................................................
FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE –
Case No: 2203032/2019
10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62
REASONS
Evidence before the Tribunal
1. The tribunal was presented with:
1.1. A pdf bundle of documents;
1.2. Skelton arguments on behalf of the claimant and the respondents
Issues
2. The preliminary hearing was listed to consider the following issues:
2.1. Whether the claim against the first respondent should be struck out under
Rule 37(1)(e) because it is no longer possible to have a fair hearing of the
claim.
2.2. Whether the claim against the first and second respondents should be
struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because it is scandalous or vexatious or has
no reasonable prospect of success.
2.3. Whether the claims against the first and/or second respondents have little
reasonable prospect of success such that the claimant should be ordered
to pay a deposit not exceeding £1,000 on each claim as a condition of being
able to advance any such allegation or argument (Rule 39).
Preliminary Matters
3. Before being able to consider the above matters the list of issues to be
considered at any final hearing was discussed.
4. The representatives agreed that they had sent an agreed list of issues to
Employment Judge Elliott however the list in the Order did not contain detriment
complaints related to an alleged protected disclosure. The respondent’s
representative said that as a result of this he proceeded on the basis that these
complaints had been dropped. He accepted however that he did not recall the
claimant stating that those complaints had been withdrawn at the last case
management discussion. There is no record of withdrawal. It appears an admin
error had therefore occurred when the issues were added to the Case
Management Order.
5. The parties clearly had not reviewed the list of issues in the Order in advance
of today’s hearing.
6. In the process of examining the list of issues the claimant’s representative also
stated that the direct discrimination complaints were alleged to be because of
both race and sex and the victimisation complaint did not reflect the position in
the ET1.
To continue reading
Request your trial