The Claimant worked as a senior lecturer for the Respondent until his dismissal in December 2019. He brought various claims before the ET and the Respondent applied for a strike-out order and/or a deposit order in relation to the allegations of sex discrimination, harassment and victimisation. The EJ struck out the claims at a preliminary hearing and the Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The Judge erred in a number of respects. First, the PH had been listed to consider applications to strike out pursuant to r.37 of the ET Rules 2013. However, the Judge, rather than striking out the claims for any identified reason set out in r.37(1)(a) to (e) appeared to have determined, summarily, whether the claims were brought in time (within the meaning of s.123(1) of the EqA 2010) and having determined that they were not, and that there was no act which extended over a period, determined, summarily, that time should not be extended. Further, the Claimant’s claims and allegations had not been properly identified. No evidence was heard and it appeared that no consideration had been given to whether evidence should be prepared or considered in order to determine preliminary issues.