Ms R Kaur v Sun Mark Ltd and Others
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Eady |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 21 March 2024 |
Judgment approved by the Court for handing down: KAUR v SUN MARK LTD AND ORS
© EAT 2024 Page 1 [2024] EAT 41
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EAT 41
Case No: EA-2023-000152-RN
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 21 March 2024
Before :
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE EADY DBE, PRESIDENT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
MS RAMANDEEP KAUR Appellant
- and –
SUN MARK LTD (1)
LORD RAMINDER SINGH RANGER (2)
SEA, AIR AND LAND FORWARDING LTD (3)
HARMEET SINGH AHUJA (4) Respondents
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Susan Chan pro bono (instructed by Cameron Clarke Lawyers, Solicitors) for the Appellant
Suzanne McKie KC and Lucas Nacif (instructed by Keystone Law, Solicitors) for the Respondents
Hearing date: 5 March 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
This judgment was handed down by the Judge remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives
by email and release to The National Archives.
The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 10:30am on 21 March 2024
Judgment approved by the Court for handing down: KAUR v SUN MARK LTD AND ORS
© EAT 2024 Page 2 [2024] EAT 41
SUMMARY
Practice and procedure – striking out – rule 37(1)(b) Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
The claimant had succeeded (in part) on her claims of sexual harassment, discrimination and victimisation. A
hearing on remedy was stayed pending an earlier appeal, which had resulted in the victimisation claims being
remitted for reconsideration. At that stage, during May 2021, the respondents had requested re-inspection of
a notebook, disclosed by the claimant during the original liability hearing, and a mobile ‘phone, on which the
claimant said she had recorded a conversation which formed part of her claim of discrimination and
victimisation. Although resisting the respondents’ requests and applications for re-inspection of the notebook
and ‘phone, the claimant did not seek to suggest that those items had been destroyed until 30 October 2022,
when she said she had in fact destroyed the notebook and ‘phone in December 2020. Considering the
claimant’s explanation in this regard, the ET concluded that she had either destroyed these items in late October
2022, upon realising that there was likely to be an order for inspection, or was lying about having done so.
Finding this was conduct falling within rule 37(1)(b) ET Rules, the ET further concluded that it was no longer
possible to have a fair trial of the remedy claim, and that it was proportionate and appropriate that that claim
should be struck out. The claimant appealed.
Held: dismissing the appeal
The ET had applied the correct tests, as laid down in the case-law, and had been entitled to find that the claimant
had either destroyed the evidence in issue in late October 2020 or was lying about having done so. In any
event, it had permissibly concluded that the evidence was relevant, or potentially relevant, to the continuing
conduct of the proceedings and that the claimant’s behaviour, in preventing further inquiry, was designed to
frustrate the doing of justice. It had been open to the ET to hold that it was no longer possible for there to be
a fair trial of the remedy claim and that, notwithstanding the draconian effect of striking out that claim, dealing
with the case justly meant that it was both proportionate and appropriate for the remedy claim to be struck out.
To continue reading
Request your trial