Mendy v Motorola Solutions UK Limited [2023] EAT 71

Appeal against the striking out of some of the Claimant's claims, refusal of an application to amend his claim and a refusal to reconsider her decisions. Appeal in allowed in the most part.

The Claimant brought claims of breach of contract and indirect race discrimination in his grounds of complaint to the employment tribunal. At a private case management hearing, an employment judge struck out some of his claims for breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages. She also refused applications to amend to bring claims of indirect race discrimination and post-termination victimisation. Later she refused an application to reconsider her decisions on the basis that her decisions were not judgments but case management orders. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal in respect of i) the striking out of various claims (contrary to rule 59 of the Employment Tribunal Rules and without the procedural safeguards required by rule 37(2)); ii) the application to amend his claim (the Claimant had already pleaded a claim of indirect race discrimination and so did not require leave to amend, as the EAT had held in an earlier appeal in the same proceedings and the employment judge did not correctly apply the principles on allowing amendments in relation to the claim of post-employment victimisation); and iii) the refusal to reconsider her decisions (the decision to strike out the claims amounted to a “judgment” within the meaning of rule 1(3)(b) and so could be reconsidered under rule 70). The Claimant’s application to amend his notice of appeal to bring new grounds was, however, refused in light of the guidance in Khudados v Leggate [2005] ICR 1013.

Published: 28/07/2023 14:38

Sign up for free email alerts

Email address
First name
Last name
Receive daily
Receive weekly
I agree to this site's terms and conditions