T v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc
[2023] EAT 119
HHJ Kalyany Kaul KC v Ministry of Justice & Ors.
15 March 2023
[2023] EAT 41
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A judge claimed discrimination because her workplace complaints weren't handled quickly. A lower court threw out her case saying the delays weren't unreasonable. A higher court agreed, saying there was no real evidence of wrongdoing.
Key Facts
- •Claimant, HHJ Kalyany Kaul KC, a Circuit Judge, brought claims under the Equality Act 2010 against the Ministry of Justice regarding the handling of two grievances.
- •The grievances concerned alleged failures to support her and acts of victimisation and bullying.
- •The Employment Tribunal struck out claims of indirect discrimination, victimisation, failure to make reasonable adjustment, harassment, and discrimination arising from disability, relating to the handling of the grievances, not the outcome.
- •The Claimant appealed the strike-out decision to the EAT.
Legal Principles
Rule 37(1)(a) allows striking out claims with no reasonable prospect of success, including those failing on critical factual issues.
Employment Tribunal Rules, Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
In victimisation claims, detriment is assessed objectively; a reasonable worker test of materiality applies.
Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] ICR 337
Rule 37(1)(a) strike-outs require caution, especially concerning fact-finding before full evidence is heard, but realistic assessment is permitted.
Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] ICR 1126; Ahir v British Airways [2017] EWCA Civ 1392
Harassment requires conduct related to a protected characteristic violating dignity or creating a hostile environment; gravity of conduct is emphasized.
Equality Act 2010, section 26(1); Land Registry v Grant [2011] ICR 1390
Outcomes
EAT dismissed the appeal.
The Employment Judge's conclusions were reasonably open to him. The claims rested on undisputed, ordinary events with no explanation provided as to why they shouldn't be taken at face value. The Judge appropriately applied Rule 37(1)(a) principles.