Former employee's discrimination claims dismissed after procedural setbacks
A former employee's claims of sex, sexual orientation and victimisation discrimination against Sullivan Bus and Coach Limited were dismissed by the Watford Employment Tribunal. The unfair dismissal complaint had already been struck out.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #sex-discrimination
- #sexual-orientation-discrimination-transexualism
- #unfair-dismissal
- #victimisation-discrimination
Key facts
- The claimant issued a claim on 20 April 2020.
- The respondent initially failed to present a valid response on time.
- A Rule 21 judgment was made on 16 June 2022 in the claimant's favour.
- The respondent later obtained an extension of time and the Rule 21 judgment was set aside.
- The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out on 7 September 2022.
- The discrimination claims were dismissed after a hearing on 8 March 2023.
Timeline
-
Claim issued
Mr Farrell issued a claim in the South East Employment Tribunals.
-
Rule 21 judgment
Employment Judge George made a judgment in the claimant's favour due to the respondent's failure to respond.
-
Judgment sent to parties
The Rule 21 judgment was sent to the parties.
-
Respondent's response submitted
The respondent submitted a response at 8.07am.
-
Hearing on extension and strike out
Employment Judge Quill granted an extension of time, set aside the Rule 21 judgment, and struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
-
Final hearing on discrimination claims
A full tribunal heard the discrimination claims and dismissed them.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Shrimplin issued the final judgment dismissing the discrimination claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the former employee was subjected to direct discrimination on grounds of sex, sexual orientation (transexualism), or victimisation, and whether the dismissal was unfair.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all discrimination claims after a final hearing. The unfair dismissal complaint had been struck out earlier due to procedural issues. The former employee, who represented himself, was unable to prove that the respondent's actions were motivated by a protected characteristic.
- No compensation was awarded as all claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you bring multiple claims, ensure each is properly pleaded and evidenced; weak claims can undermine stronger ones.
- Act promptly on tribunal deadlines: missing a response can lead to a default judgment, but it can be set aside if the delay is explained.
- Representing yourself is possible but challenging; consider seeking advice or representation for complex discrimination claims.
- The tribunal will scrutinise the evidence carefully; allegations of discrimination must be supported by facts, not just assertions.
This case illustrates the procedural hurdles that can derail an employment claim before it reaches a full hearing. The former employee issued a claim in April 2020, but the respondent initially failed to respond, leading to a default judgment in June 2022. However, the respondent later obtained an extension of time, and the default judgment was set aside. The unfair dismissal complaint was then struck out in September 2022, leaving only the discrimination claims to proceed.
At the final hearing in March 2023, the tribunal heard the discrimination allegations of direct sex discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination (transexualism), and victimisation. The former employee, acting as a litigant in person, was unable to persuade the tribunal that the respondent's actions were linked to a protected characteristic. The unanimous decision was that no discrimination occurred, and the claims were dismissed.
What this means for similar claims
This case serves as a reminder that procedural compliance is critical. Even if a claim is initially successful by default, it can be overturned if the respondent provides a good reason for the delay. For claimants, it highlights the importance of building a strong evidential foundation for discrimination allegations. Without clear evidence linking the employer's conduct to a protected characteristic, the claim is likely to fail.
For employers, the case shows that even if a response is late, the tribunal may still accept it and set aside a default judgment, provided there is a reasonable explanation. However, the best practice is always to respond on time.
Similar cases
Whistleblowing claim: repeated amendment applications not unreasonable enough for costs
A former chartered accountant who made multiple applications to amend her whistleblowing and sex discrimination claims avoided a costs order, even though most amendments were refused. The tribunal said her conduct was not unreasonable or vexatious.
Dismissed without notice and discriminated against: a double blow for a former employee
A former employee was unfairly dismissed, wrongfully dismissed without notice, and discriminated against on grounds of sex. The tribunal awarded £16,208.68, including an uplift for the employer's failure to follow the ACAS code.
Tutor unfairly dismissed after employer mistakenly accepted resignation
A tutor with three years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer wrongly believed she had resigned. The tribunal awarded £1,499.54 for breach of contract and unlawful deduction of wages.
Agency worker's employment status claims dismissed: no contract with end-user
An agency worker who claimed unfair dismissal, sex discrimination and equal pay against the end-user and hirer lost all claims after the tribunal found he was not an employee of either respondent.