EAT VICTIMISATION – Discrimination claims
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Imposition of deposit
C1 was an Army officer against whom court-martial proceedings were brought, and subsequently dropped, and who was thereafter involved in prolonged proceedings under the Army’s procedure for redress of complaints – Her treatment in both sets of proceedings was alleged to constitute sex discrimination and (by a subsequent application to amend) victimisation – C2 was her defending officer in the court-martial proceedings and her assisting officer in the complaint proceedings and claimed to have suffered adverse treatment as a result, constituting ‘associative discrimination / victimisation’ – Both sets of claims were poorly particularised and arguably to a greater or lesser extent out of time
Judge at PHR made deposit order in relation to victimisation claims but not in relation to the remainder of the claims.
Judges:
Underhill P J
Citations:
[2011] UKEAT 0104 – 11 – 2705
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment, Armed Forces
Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.444524