EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION
On the third day of the hearing, at the close of the Claimant’s case, the Respondent applied to strike out the claim. The Tribunal reserved judgment and acceded to the application, which it described as an application to dismiss the claim on the grounds that there was no case to answer. It recognised that to a substantial extent the Claimant’s case depended on her credibility. It found her credibility to be flawed to the point where it would not be able to rely on her evidence at all.
Held: the Tribunal erred in law in acceding to the application. Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union [2001] ICR 391, Eszias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] ICR 1126 and Williams v Real Care Agency [2012] UKEATS/0051/12 applied. Cases concerning applications to dismiss at the close of the Claimant’s case also considered.
David Richardson J
[2012] UKEAT 0160 – 12 – 0210, [2013] ICR D7
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Anyanwu and Another v South Bank Student Union and Another HL 24-May-2001
The university had imposed a new constitution on its students union, which resulted in the dismissal of the claimant. He sought to assert racial discrimination.
Held: The concept of ‘aiding’ somebody in committing discriminatory behaviour . .
Cited – Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust CA 7-Mar-2007
The employer had applied to strike out their employee’s claim for unfair dismissal, and also sought a deposit from the claimant. The claim had been re-instated by the EAT.
Held: A claim should not be struck out where, as here, there were facts . .
Applied – Williams v Real Care Agency Ltd EAT 13-Mar-2012
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
A claim was struck out in mid hearing, before the Claimant’s cross-examination had concluded, and without affording her the opportunity to call further . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.464613