T v Ministry of Defence :2201755/2021
| Judgment Date | 13 December 2021 |
| Citation | 2201755/2021 |
| Date | 13 December 2021 |
| Published date | 23 December 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
Case Number: 2201755/2021
- 1 -
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
BETWEEN
Claimant AND Respondent
T Ministry of Defence
Heard at: London Central (by video) On: 8 December 2021
Before: Employment Judge Stout
Representations
For the claimant: Nicola Braganza (counsel)
For the respondent: James Chegwidden (respondent)
JUDGMENT ON STRIKE-OUT AND
DEPOSIT ORDER APPLICATIONS
The judgment of the Tribunal is that:-
(1) The Respondent’s application to strike out the Claimant’s disability
discrimination claim under Rule 37(1)(a)/(b) as falling outwith the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal by virtue of paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 9 to
the EA 2010 is dismissed.
(2) The Respondent’s application to strike out the Claimant’s sex
discrimination and victimisation claims under Rule 37(1)(a)/(b) on
grounds that they stand no reasonable prospect of success and/or are
an abuse of process is dismissed.
(3) The sex discrimination and victimisation claims stand little prospect of
success and accordingly the threshold for making deposit orders in
respect of both claims under Rule 39 is met. Further directions are given
for the further determination of the deposit orders applications.
Case Number: 2201755/2021
- 2 -
REASONS
The type of hearing
1. This has been a remote electronic hearing by video under Rule 46. The
public was invited to observe via a notice on Courtserve.net. A member of
the public joined. There were no connection issues.
2. The participants were told that it is an offence to record the proceedings.
Background
3. The Claimant was enlisted as an Able Seaman in the Royal Navy from 12
October 2014 until 1 April 2018. She left the Royal Navy after being
medically discharged. She suffers from PTSD, anxiety and depression which
she contends constituted a disability under the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010)
at the relevant time. This is not admitted by the Respondent. In these
proceedings she brings claims of sex discrimination, disability discrimination
and victimisation under the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010). The claims are
concerned with the handling by the Respondent, following the Claimant’s
discharge, of the Claimant’s Service Complaints about alleged sexual
harassment as submitted by the Claimant in accordance with the procedures
laid down for such complaints under Part 14A of the Armed Forces Act 2006
(AFA 2006) and the Armed Forces (Services Complaints) Regulations 2015
(SI 2015/1955) (the 2015 Regulations) made thereunder.
4. An anonymity order in respect of the Claimant and some individuals
employed by the Respondent was made by EJ Snelson on 19 July 2021 and
remains in place.
5. This hearing was listed to determine applications by the Respondent to
strike out the claims under Rule 37 or in the alternative for deposit orders
under Rule 39. The applications were refined by the Respondent in the light
of the Claimant’s response to the applications, so that at the hearing the
following issues arose for me to determine. I have reorganised these
grounds into the order in which it is convenient to deal with them in the
judgment:-
a. Whether the whole claim should be struck out under Rule 37(1)(a)
on the ground that it had been brought prematurely and was
therefore an abuse of process (Application 4);
b. Whether the sex discrimination claims and victimisation claims
should be struck out under Rule 37(1)(b) as being unreasonably
pursued because they are in substance attempts to appeal the
To continue reading
Request your trial