Adrian Arvunescu v Quick Release (Automotive) Ltd

Adrian Arvunescu v Quick Release (Automotive) Ltd

The Tribunal erred in striking out the victimisation claim as having no reasonable prospect of success because the pleaded facts could potentially support a claim under section 112 of the Equality Act 2010. However, the COT3 agreement was sufficiently broad to compromise the claim, as it arose indirectly out of the claimant's employment with the respondent.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Mr Adrian Arvunescu; Respondent: Quick Release (Automotive) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Victimisation, COT3 Settlement, Race Discrimination, Jurisdiction of Employment Tribunal
Employment Law Discrimination Law Victimisation COT3 Settlement Race Discrimination Jurisdiction of Employment Tribunal

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Adrian Arvunescu

Appellant/claimant

Quick Release (Automotive) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in striking out the victimisation claim as having no reasonable prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether the COT3 agreement precluded the victimisation claim from being pursued

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in striking out the victimisation claim as having no reasonable prospect of success because the pleaded facts could potentially support a claim under section 112 of the Equality Act 2010. However, the COT3 agreement was sufficiently broad to compromise the claim, as it arose indirectly out of the claimant's employment with the respondent.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Appeal allowed on ground 1 (strike out of victimisation claim was wrong)
  • Appeal dismissed on ground 2 (COT3 agreement precluded the claim)