Carmen Chevalier-Firescu v HSBC Bank PLC
[2024] EAT 6
Dr Gueorgui Kolev v Middlesex University
14 November 2023
[2023] EAT 173
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A lecturer sued his university for sexism. The first judge dismissed the case too quickly without looking at all the evidence. A higher court said the judge was wrong and sent the case back to a different judge to decide properly.
Key Facts
- •Dr Gueorgui Kolev (Claimant/Appellant) appealed an Employment Tribunal (ET) decision striking out his sex discrimination claims against Middlesex University (Respondent).
- •The claims, alleging discrimination before October 7, 2019, were deemed out of time by the ET.
- •The ET Judge failed to properly identify the Claimant's claims and consider whether they constituted a continuing act of discrimination.
- •The Preliminary Hearing (PH) was initially listed to consider strike-out applications under ET Rule 37 but instead determined the timeliness of the claims.
- •The Claimant alleged less favorable treatment compared to female colleagues in promotion applications, grievance handling, and sabbatical leave requests.
- •The Claimant also linked the denial of sabbatical leave to subsequent disciplinary proceedings and dismissal.
- •The Respondent argued the claims were time-barred.
Legal Principles
Time limits for bringing discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010.
Equality Act 2010, section 123(1) and (3)
Grounds for striking out claims in Employment Tribunal proceedings.
Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, Rule 37(1)(a) to (e)
Procedure for Preliminary Hearings in Employment Tribunals.
Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, Rules 53 and 54
Two-stage approach to strike-out applications based on lack of reasonable prospects of success.
Balls v Downham Market High School and College [2011] IRLR 217 (EAT)
Caution in striking out discrimination claims, requiring consideration of core disputed issues and oral evidence where necessary.
Mechkarov v Citibank [2016] ICR 1121
Principles regarding the determination of limitation issues at a preliminary hearing in discrimination cases.
E v 1) X 2) L and 3) Z UKEAT/0079/20/RN; Caterham School Limited v Rose (UKEAT/0149RN)
Outcomes
The EAT allowed the appeal.
The ET Judge erred in several respects, including failing to properly identify the Claimant's claims, conflating a preliminary issue with a strike-out application, and not applying the correct legal principles regarding time limits and strike-out.
The case was remitted to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal.
The EAT found the ET Judge's judgment to be flawed and a rehearing before a different tribunal was necessary to address the disputed factual issues.