Roy v Stephenson Harwood Services Ltd (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Striking-out/dismissal) [2018] UKEAT 0145_17_0903 (9 March 2018)

Roy v Stephenson Harwood Services Ltd (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Striking-out/dismissal) [2018] UKEAT 0145_17_0903 (9 March 2018)

The Tribunal erred in law by striking out the claims without taking the Claimant's case at its highest, particularly where there were core disputes of fact regarding when the alleged harassment was reported and whether the protected act was done before the decision not to renew the contract. These factual disputes precluded summary determination and required a full hearing.

Citation
[2018] UKEAT 0145_17_0903
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Katia Roy; Respondent: Stephenson Harwood LLP
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
09 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Striking Out of Discrimination and Harassment Claims
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; striking out set aside; matter remitted for deposit order consideration.
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Harassment, Victimisation, Striking Out, Practice and Procedure
Employment Law Discrimination Harassment Victimisation Striking Out Practice and Procedure

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Katia Roy

Appellant/claimant

Stephenson Harwood LLP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Striking Out of Discrimination and Harassment Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in striking out claims of direct sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and sex victimisation for having no reasonable prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to take the Claimant's case at its highest in accordance with established legal principles
  3. 3 Whether there were core disputes of fact precluding summary determination

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law by striking out the claims without taking the Claimant's case at its highest, particularly where there were core disputes of fact regarding when the alleged harassment was reported and whether the protected act was done before the decision not to renew the contract. These factual disputes precluded summary determination and required a full hearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; striking out set aside; matter remitted for deposit order consideration.

Orders

  • Striking out of claims set aside
  • Matter remitted to Tribunal to consider appropriate deposit orders having regard to Claimant's means