Simpson v Air Business Ltd: EAT 9 Apr 2019

Victimisation Discrimination – Protected Disclosure – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
There is an issue between the parties as to the cause of detriments, the subject of the alleged victimisation contrary to the Equality Act 2010. The Claimant alleges that they were because of an admitted protected act, the bringing of a grievance alleging sex discrimination, the Respondent alleges that they had a multiplicity of causes. The Employment Judge erred in deciding that the claim had little prospect of success because ‘it was difficult to see . . that the reason for those things happening was because of the protected act itself rather than a continuation of an ongoing state of affairs’. That observation failed to appreciate the case advanced by the Claimant. The Claimant asserted that the detriments were actions taken by HR in relation to her work arrangements and dismissal. Previous allegations had been of actions of others, her co-workers about acts of a different nature, their personal conduct towards the Claimant. The Employment Judge erred in failing to appreciate the factual dispute about the most important issue to be determined: the cause of the detriments. This can only be determined on findings of fact after trial of the evidence. This and other errors led to the appeal being allowed. The deposit order was set aside.


[2019] UKEAT 0009 – 19 – 0904




England and Wales


Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.637648