Site icon swarb.co.uk

Ministry of Defence v P and Q: EAT 27 May 2011

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:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Armed Forces

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.444524

Exit mobile version