Miss M Samuwi v Firstport Property Services No.14 Ltd and Chancery Estate Agents Ltd: 1401269/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 1401269/2024
Between
Miss M SamuwiClaimant(1) Firstport Property Services N.14 Limited (2) Chancery Estate Agents LimitedRespondent
Before
Employment Judge BowenIn person for claimantDate 9 October 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The Respondent’s application to strike out the race discrimination claim on the ground that it has no reasonable prospects of success under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 is granted in relation to the following complaints and they are struck out accordingly: a) The complaints at para 2 a.(ii), (iii) and (v).[2]The Respondent’s application in relation to the remaining complaints as set out in the list of issues is refused and these complaints will proceed. Case management orders have been issued under separate cover.
REASONS
[1]This was a public PH in this matter to hear applications for strike out and deposit orders from the Respondent. On 17 May 2024 the Claimant presented a claim against the Respondent, Firstport Property Services No.14 Limited (“Firstport”) and Chancery Estates Limited. The claim alleged that the Claimant had been subjected to race discrimination. The Claimant defines her race as black British African.[2]Claimant was employed by Firstport as a Property Manager. The Respondent is a residential property service business which provides residential management services. It is a large employer, with around 3000 employees. The Claimant’s employment commenced on 19 June 2023. She was still employed by Firstport when the claim was presented but the Tribunal was informed that her employment has now terminated. The Second Respondent, Chancery Estates Ltd, was a letting agent which Firstport dealt with in the course of its business and with whose employees or representatives the Claimant had to deal in the course of her employment.[3]During the period 8 – 11 December 2023 a person working at Chancery Estates Limited sent three emails to employees of Firstport. The Claimant was copied into them. It is unnecessary to set them out. The emails are highly unpleasant and include racially offensive references to the Claimant.[4]On receipt of the emails Mr Covell, Head of Operations at Firstport, sent emails to the sender of the emails making clear that the emails were unacceptable and that the Respondent would not be dealing with her again. On 11 December 2023 the Claimant commenced sickness absence. As I have stated the claim was presented on 17 May 2024.[5]There was a Preliminary Hearing before EJ Self on 10 December 2024 at which the issues in the case were clarified and a further PH before EJ Bowen on 25 April 2025. EJ Bowen dismissed the claim against Chancery Estates Ltd on the basis that it was not Claimant’s employer and nor was it an agent of Firstport and as such the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint against it. Accordingly, the only Respondent in the proceedings is now Firstport[6]At the PH EJ Bowen identified the issues in the claim. These are set out at para 57 of the Case Management Summary at p.55 of the bundle. The Claimant was required to provide further information in relation to the allegations. She sent an email to Tribunal on 30 September 2025 purporting to provide this information and has also provided some clarification today.[7]The allegations of race discrimination against the Respondent are as follows (they are set out in accordance with the list of issues prepared at the last PH before EJ Bowen). The Claimant alleges that the Respondent discriminated against her because of race by failing to do the following: i. Investigated my complaints in a timely manner – upon my reports to Mr Covell [Claimant to identify the date of the report and whether it was verbal or written], the First Respondent should have conducted a formal enquiry into the communications I received from Ms P. Instead, my concerns were dismissed or minimized. ii. Escalated the matter to HR or senior management – rather than being told to “put up with it” [Claimant to confirm whom she says said this, when and whether it was verbal or in writing]. There should have been an escalation process ensuring my grievance was properly recorded and acted upon at an early stage. iii. Ensured a safe and inclusive work environment. The First Respondent had a duty to ensure that no employee faced racial harassment or inappropriate communication in the workplace. Their failure to act fostered an environment where such behaviour was tolerated. iv. Provided proper support and protection – as demonstrated in the attached screenshots [the Claimant is to set out what is relied on, when it occurred and what was said/done and by whom] when I raised issues regarding my well-being, I was met with indifference rather than support. This lack of assistance extended to my reports about inappropriate communications, leaving me feeling unprotected and unheard. v. Prevented retaliation or further harm. The First Respondent should have ensured that raising concerns would not negatively impact my role or well-being. However, the dismissive nature of responses from management created an atmosphere where I felt discouraged from escalating my concerns further. vi. Taken disciplinary or corrective action against the source of the harassment. If properly investigated, the Respondent should have taken reasonable steps to address the inappropriate communications from Ms P such as issuing a formal warning, meditation or corrective training.[8]In relation to allegation (i) it is accepted by the Respondent that the Claimant said she wanted to put in a grievance against Mr Covell at a meeting conducted by video call with Claire Bryce, an HR Business Partner of the Respondent on 11 December 2023. Ms Bryce subsequently sent her the Respondent’s grievance policy. The Claimant did not submit a grievance. She was off sick from 11 December 2025. When asked to clarify what she said the Respondent should have done, given that it did not employ the person at Chancery Estates Limited who was responsible for the emails she said that the Respondent should have conducted a mediation or an intervention of some kind.[9]In relation to allegation (ii) the Claimant said that the Respondent should have escalated the matter to HR or senior management rather than telling her to “put up with it”. In the hearing I asked the Claimant to confirm when this was said and who said it, as this was not set out in the written material she had provided to the Tribunal and the Respondent. She confirmed that these words were not actually said to her but that she inferred that she was being told to put up with the offensive emails on the basis of the way she felt previous concerns she had had such as having to be alone when she met a male client or sickness issues had been dealt with.[10]I considered that there was great deal of overlap in the complaints and that the complaint at (v) is essentially the same as complaint (ii) and that complaints (iv) and (vi) are in substance the same complaint as (i).[11]Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 states: “38 Striking Out (1) The Tribunal may, on its own initiative or on the application of a party, strike out all or part of a claim, response or reply on any of the following grounds- (a) that it is scandalous or vexatious or has no reasonable prospect of success…”[12]The main principles relevant to strike out (at the time under Rule 37 of the 2013 Rules but there is no change in substance under the 2024 Rules) were discussed and reviewed by the EAT (HHJ Tayler) in Cox v Adecco Group UK and Others [2021] ICR 1307.[13]The principles, set out at [28] are: 1) No one gains by truly hopeless cases being pursued; 2) Strike out is not prohibited in discrimination or whistleblowing cases; but especial care must be taken in such cases as it is very rarely appropriate; 3) If the question of whether a claim has reasonable prospects of success turns on factual issues that are disputed, it is highly unlikely that strike out will be appropriate; 4) The claimant’s case must ordinarily be taken at its highest; 5) It is necessary to consider, in reasonable detail, what the claims and issues are. Put bluntly, one cannot decide whether the claim has reasonable prospects of success if one doesn’t know what it is; 6) Identifying what the claim and issues are does not necessarily require the agreement of a formal list of issues, although this may assist greatly, but it does require a fair assessment of the claims and issues on the basis of the pleadings and any other documents in which the claimant seeks to set out the claim; 7) In the case of a litigant in person, the claim should not be ascertained only by requiring the claimant to explain it while under the stresses of a hearing; reasonable care must be taken to read the pleadings (including additional information) and any key documents in which the claimant sets out the case. When pushed by a judge to explain the claim, a litigant in person may become like a rabbit in the headlights and fail to explain the case they have set out in writing; 8) Respondents, particularly if legally represented, in accordance with their duties to assist the tribunal to comply with the overriding objective and not to take procedural advantage of litigants in person, should assist the tribunal to identify the documents in which the claim is set out, even if it may not be explicitly pleaded in a manner which would be expected of a lawyer; 9) If the claim would have reasonable prospects of success if properly pleaded, consideration should be given to the possibility of an amendment, subject to the usual test of balancing the justice of permitting or refusing the amendment, taking into account the relevant circumstances.[14]The test for strike out is high. The tribunal must be satisfied that it can properly conclude that the claim is bound to fail. See Balls v Downham Market High School & College [2011] IRLR 217.[15]In relation to the need to take the claimant’s case at its highest (principle 4) the EAT (HHJ Beard) stated in Amber v West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service [2024] EAT 146 the EAT (HHJ Beard) stated [28]: “A case advanced should be taken at its highest. That is a phrase regularly used in courts and tribunals, but it does not mean, naively accepting the case advanced. At its highest requires the judge to test the factual account. This would include, for example, examining the case against basic logic, internal inconsistency or any contradiction by contemporaneous documentary evidence. Therefore, a claim or part of a claim is not taken at its highest within its own terms, but is examined through the prism of reality”[16]I should add, in relation to principle (7), namely the importance of not placing a litigant in person under unfair pressure by having to explain their case in a hearing, that I was mindful of this principle when I asked the Claimant to explain elements of the complaint which had still not been fully set out by her, as ordered by EJ Bowen at the last hearing. I took into account that this was now the third Preliminary Hearing in the proceedings and that it was not placing the Claimant under unfair pressure to ask her to explain essential elements of her complaints which had been fully discussed at the previous hearings, where orders had been made that she provide the information and that the information had still not been provided by her prior to this hearing.[17]My conclusions on the strike-out application are as follows. I will deal first with claim (ii). It is clear that the Claimant was not told to “just put up with it”. She has confirmed that this was not said to her in relation to the racially offensive emails. Her case is that on the basis of how the Respondent had dealt with previous issues she felt she was being told to just put up with it. However, I consider that case to be hopeless. I am satisfied that a case put on that basis is bound to fail. I consider that (v) is a repetition of this complaint. Accordingly, both complaints are struck out.[18]The complaint at (iii) is that the Respondent should have ensured a safe and inclusive work environment and that it had a duty to ensure that no employee faced racial harassment or inappropriate communications in the workplace. I consider that the legal basis of this claim is hopeless. The Equality Act 2010 does not make an employer liable for harassment from a third party no matter how offensive. It would have to be shown that the Respondent itself, consciously or unconsciously, because of race, acted or failed to act and thereby exposed the Claimant to racially offensive conduct. Furthermore, the Claimant has accepted that was no racially offensive conduct from Ms P prior to the emails and no indication prior to those emails that Claimant would be subject to racially offensive conduct in her dealings with her. In these circumstances I consider complaint (iii) is a claim which is bound to fail and accordingly it is struck out.[19]I now deal with allegation (i). This this seems to be advanced on the basis that there should have been some form of investigation, inquiry or mediation into the Claimant’s concerns. I consider that what was discussed in the meeting on 11 December 2023 is likely to be relevant to this complaint. The Respondent accepts that the Claimant did say she wanted to raise a grievance. She was sent a copy of policy. At that point was off sick.[20]With some hesitation I have decided that it is not appropriate to strike this complaint out. I take into account that the Respondent was an employer with relatively significant resources and that this was in my view an extremely serious case of an employee being subjected to discriminatory and offensive language, effectively in front of other employees, as the emails were sent to a number of people. It is accepted that the Claimant made clear that she was unhappy with the Respondent. I consider it arguable that the Respondent could have done more to support the Claimant or take further steps in relation to the incident, particularly when it learned that the Claimant appeared to be unhappy about the way that it was dealing with the matter.[21]I don’t consider that I can say that the Claimant’s case that the Respondent should have done more than it did and that its failure to do so was influenced by race is utterly hopeless and there is no chance whatsoever that it will succeed.[22]I consider that (iv) and (vi) are essentially different ways of presenting the same complaint as is set out in (i), namely that the Respondent should have done more than it did. As such I decline to strike out complaints (i) (iv) and (vi).