Bahad v HSBC Bank Plc (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE : race and religious discrimination) [2022] EAT 83 (01 June 2022)

Bahad v HSBC Bank Plc (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE : race and religious discrimination) [2022] EAT 83 (01 June 2022)

The employment tribunal erred in law by striking out the race and religious discrimination claims where there were significant factual disputes and the claimant's case was not taken at its highest, especially as a litigant in person. The protected disclosure detriment claim was properly struck out as fanciful and having no reasonable prospect of success.

Citation
[2022] EAT 83
Parties
Claimant: Claimant (name not specified); Respondent: HSBC (First Respondent); Respondent: Resource Solutions Limited (Second Respondent)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
01 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Against Strike Out of Claims at Preliminary Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; strike out of race and religious discrimination claims overturned; strike out of protected disclosure detriment claim upheld.
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Religious Discrimination, Protected Disclosure Detriment, Strike Out Applications, Litigants in Person, Case Management
Employment Law Race Discrimination Religious Discrimination Protected Disclosure Detriment Strike Out Applications Litigants in Person Case Management

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant (name not specified)

Claimant

HSBC (First Respondent)

Respondent

Resource Solutions Limited (Second Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Against Strike Out of Claims at Preliminary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employment tribunal erred in law in striking out claims of race and religious discrimination at a preliminary hearing not listed for strike out and without proper opportunity for representations.
  2. 2 Whether the employment tribunal erred in law in striking out a claim of protected disclosure detriment.

Ratio Decidendi

The employment tribunal erred in law by striking out the race and religious discrimination claims where there were significant factual disputes and the claimant's case was not taken at its highest, especially as a litigant in person. The protected disclosure detriment claim was properly struck out as fanciful and having no reasonable prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; strike out of race and religious discrimination claims overturned; strike out of protected disclosure detriment claim upheld.

Orders

  • Strike out of race and religious discrimination claims set aside and those claims to proceed to hearing.
  • Strike out of protected disclosure detriment claim upheld.