Sami v Avellan & Ors (Practice and Procedure) [2022] EAT 72 (17 May 2022)

Sami v Avellan & Ors (Practice and Procedure) [2022] EAT 72 (17 May 2022)

The Employment Judge erred in making deposit orders against the claimant in respect of claims against the Second and Fourth Respondents because the reasons given were irrelevant or insufficient to meet the statutory threshold of 'little reasonable prospect of success'. The claim against the Second Respondent under section 111 EqA would inevitably fail due to the statutory precondition in section 111(7), but the claims under sections 109, 110, and 112 were supported by more than mere assertions and should not have been subject to a deposit order. The deposit order against the Fourth Respondent was based on irrelevant considerations (short period of employment and disputed reason for...

Citation
[2022] EAT 72
Parties
Appellant: Mr Tariq Sami; Respondent: Mr Abel Avellan; Respondent: NanoAvionics UK Ltd; Respondent: Nanoavionika UAB t/a Nanoavionika LLC; Respondent: AST & Science LLC
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
17 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeal / Appeal Against Deposit Orders and Strike Out Orders at Preliminary Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; deposit orders and resulting strike out orders against Second and Fourth Respondents set aside; appeal dismissed as to section 111 claim against Second Respondent.
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Harassment, Agency Liability, Aiding Contraventions, Deposit Orders, Strike Out, Employment Tribunal Procedure
Employment Law Equality and Discrimination Race Discrimination Harassment Agency Liability Aiding Contraventions Deposit Orders Strike Out +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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Tariq Sami

Appellant

Mr Abel Avellan

Respondent

NanoAvionics UK Ltd

Respondent

Nanoavionika UAB t/a Nanoavionika LLC

Respondent

AST & Science LLC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeal / Appeal Against Deposit Orders and Strike Out Orders at Preliminary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Judge erred in making deposit orders against the claimant in respect of claims against the Second and Fourth Respondents under sections 109, 110, 111, and 112 of the Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Judge failed to give adequate or relevant reasons for the deposit orders
  3. 3 Whether the claim under section 111 EqA against the Second Respondent could succeed given the statutory precondition in section 111(7)

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Judge erred in making deposit orders against the claimant in respect of claims against the Second and Fourth Respondents because the reasons given were irrelevant or insufficient to meet the statutory threshold of 'little reasonable prospect of success'. The claim against the Second Respondent under section 111 EqA would inevitably fail due to the statutory precondition in section 111(7), but the claims under sections 109, 110, and 112 were supported by more than mere assertions and should not have been subject to a deposit order. The deposit order against the Fourth Respondent was based on irrelevant considerations (short period of employment and disputed reason for...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; deposit orders and resulting strike out orders against Second and Fourth Respondents set aside; appeal dismissed as to section 111 claim against Second Respondent.

Orders

  • Deposit orders against Second and Fourth Respondents set aside
  • Strike out orders based on non-payment of deposits set aside