Ramandeep Kaur v Sun Mark Ltd & Ors

Ramandeep Kaur v Sun Mark Ltd & Ors

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that the claimant had either destroyed material evidence or lied about its destruction at a stage when inspection was likely to be ordered, and that this conduct was designed to frustrate the doing of justice. The evidence was relevant to remedy and credibility. The Tribunal correctly applied the legal tests, found a fair trial was no longer possible, and determined that strike out was a proportionate and appropriate sanction. The appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Ms Ramandeep Kaur; Respondent: Sun Mark Ltd; Respondent: Lord Raminder Singh Ranger; Respondent: Sea, Air and Land Forwarding Ltd; Respondent: Harmeet Singh Ahuja
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Striking Out, Unreasonable Conduct, Destruction of Evidence, Remedies, Sexual Harassment, Discrimination, Victimisation
Employment Law Equality Law Striking Out Unreasonable Conduct Destruction of Evidence Remedies Sexual Harassment Discrimination +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Ramandeep Kaur

Appellant

Sun Mark Ltd

Respondent

Lord Raminder Singh Ranger

Respondent

Sea, Air and Land Forwarding Ltd

Respondent

Harmeet Singh Ahuja

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in striking out the claimant's remedy claim under rule 37(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 for scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious conduct and/or impossibility of a fair hearing due to destruction of evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that the claimant had either destroyed material evidence or lied about its destruction at a stage when inspection was likely to be ordered, and that this conduct was designed to frustrate the doing of justice. The evidence was relevant to remedy and credibility. The Tribunal correctly applied the legal tests, found a fair trial was no longer possible, and determined that strike out was a proportionate and appropriate sanction. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The claimant's appeal is dismissed. The order striking out the remedy claim stands.