Credit analyst's religion discrimination claim survives strike out bid
A tribunal refused to strike out a credit analyst's claims of constructive unfair dismissal and religion-based discrimination, finding the claims had reasonable prospects despite missing details.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #strike-out-application
- #litigant-in-person
- #religion-belief-discrimination
- #constructive-unfair-dismissal
- #deposit-order
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Credit Analyst from 2 September 2019 to 1 October 2021.
- The claimant brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal, direct discrimination, harassment, and victimisation based on her Jewish religion.
- The respondent applied to strike out the claims or for a deposit order, arguing lack of reasonable prospects and non-compliance with case management orders.
- The claimant withdrew the victimisation claim at the hearing.
- The tribunal refused the strike out and deposit order applications, finding the claims had reasonable prospects and the claimant had complied as best she could.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a Credit Analyst for the respondent.
-
Grievance letter sent
Claimant sent a grievance letter to the respondent.
-
Early conciliation started
Early conciliation began.
-
Early conciliation certificate issued
Early conciliation certificate issued.
-
Claim form presented
Claimant presented her ET1 claim form.
-
Employment ended
Claimant's employment ended.
-
Respondent's response
Respondent submitted its response defending the claims.
-
Order for further particulars
Employment Judge Laidler ordered claimant to provide further particulars by 28 March 2022.
-
Claimant provided particulars
Claimant served further particulars.
-
Case management hearing
Employment Judge Eeley held a telephone case management hearing, clarified claims, and formulated a list of issues.
-
Claimant provided additional information
Claimant submitted further information as ordered.
-
Respondent's strike out application
Respondent applied to strike out claims or for a deposit order.
-
Strike out warning notice
Employment Judge Eeley issued a strike out warning notice to the claimant.
-
Claimant's response to warning
Claimant submitted a response to the strike out warning.
-
Preliminary hearing
The strike out application was heard by Employment Judge Bansal.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Bansal issued a reserved judgment refusing the strike out and deposit order applications.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's claims for constructive unfair dismissal, direct discrimination, and harassment based on her Jewish religion should be struck out for having no reasonable prospects of success, or whether a deposit order should be made.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the respondent's applications to strike out the claims or require a deposit.
The key reason was that the claims had reasonable prospects of success, and the claimant had provided further particulars and responded to orders as best she could, despite lacking exact dates due to not having access to her work emails after leaving.
No compensation was awarded as this was a preliminary hearing on strike out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Tribunals are reluctant to strike out discrimination claims early if the claimant has provided some particulars and shown willingness to comply with orders.
- Lack of access to work emails after leaving employment can be a valid reason for missing details, and tribunals may take this into account.
- A strike out application may be refused even if the claimant's response to a warning does not directly address the strike out grounds, as long as the underlying claim has merit.
- Respondents should ensure their strike out applications are based on clear failures to comply or lack of prospects, not just on missing dates or incomplete particulars.
What this case shows
This case demonstrates that employment tribunals will not automatically strike out discrimination claims simply because the claimant cannot provide every detail, especially when the lack of detail is due to circumstances beyond their control. The credit analyst, who worked for Lawson (Whetstone) Limited for just over two years, brought claims of constructive unfair dismissal and discrimination based on her Jewish religion. After leaving her job, she no longer had access to her work emails, which made it difficult to provide exact dates for the incidents she relied on.
What the respondent could have done differently
The respondent applied to strike out the claims on the basis that the claimant had failed to provide ordered particulars and that the claims had no reasonable prospects. However, the tribunal noted that the claimant had provided further particulars and additional information as ordered, even if it was not as detailed as the respondent wanted. The respondent could have focused on engaging with the substance of the claims rather than seeking early strike out, especially given that the final hearing was not listed until June 2024, allowing time for further evidence.
Why this matters
This decision highlights that strike out applications are a high bar for respondents. The tribunal must be satisfied that the claim has no reasonable prospects of success, which is a stringent test. Here, the claimant had identified the protected characteristic (religion) and alleged specific incidents, even if dates were missing. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had complied with case management orders to the best of her ability, which weighed against strike out. For employees considering similar claims, this case shows that persistence in providing what you can, and explaining gaps, can help keep your claim alive.
Similar cases
Constructive dismissal claim allowed to proceed after employer ignored redundancy request for 39 days
A former People Advisor who resigned after her employer failed to respond to her redundancy request for 39 days has been allowed to pursue claims for a redundancy payment and constructive unfair dismissal.
Tesco fails to strike out constructive dismissal and race discrimination claims
A former employee's constructive dismissal and race discrimination claims against Tesco survive after the tribunal refused to strike them out for non-compliance with case management orders.
HR Business Partner dismissed after one month for whistleblowing: £74,540 awarded
An HR Business Partner who raised concerns about a flawed redundancy process was dismissed after just one month. The tribunal awarded £74,540 after striking out the employer's response.
Constructive dismissal claims survive strike-out attempt: lessons for employers on trust and confidence
An experienced HR professional's claims of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination will proceed to a full hearing after the tribunal refused to strike them out, though deposit orders were made.