Mr M D Hoang v University of Wales Trinity St David: 2305009/2023

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2305009/2023

Between

Mr M D HoangClaimant

University of Wales Trinity St DavidRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Wright

In person for claimant

Date 3 April 2025

JUDGMENT

The respondent’s application to strike out the claimant’s claim is successful. The claim is dismissed. Approved by

REASONS

The respondent’s application to strike out the claim was successful.

[1]At the claimant’s request, an interpreter was booked to attend the hearing to assist the Tribunal. The interpreter was not present when the hearing started. It was established that the claimant was undertaking a PhD equivalent course taught in English. Due to the level of qualifications he had obtained in the UK, he was not required to demonstrate his ability in English when he was granted indefinite leave to remine in the UK. In view of this, the claimant was asked if he was content to proceed and he agreed that he was. He asked that everyone speak slowly and he was told if he needed any more time or anything repeating, to say so and it would be accommodated. Case Number: 2305009/2023 2

[2]The claim was presented on 19/9/2023. The claimant has ticked the box in section8.1 to indicate he was claiming age discrimination and ‘other payments’ (page 10). The only reference in box

8.2 to discrimination stated ‘Despite complaints, the employer has made minimal efforts to address these disadvantages, giving rise to concerns of direct and indirect discrimination, victimisation, and unfair compensation (page 11). There was no reference to age discrimination and no particulars of either discrimination or victimisation.

[3]The respondent made a request for further particulars of the claim on the 20/6/2024 (page 43). A preliminary hearing had taken place on the 14/6/2024, however the Order was not sent to the parties until the 4/7/2024 (pages 47 and 50). The hearing recorded the claims as: Unfair dismissal. Direct and indirect age discrimination. Victimisation; Unlawful deductions [unauthorised deductions]; and ‘Other payments’

[4]Notwithstanding the respondent stated the claimant was not an employee, the reference to unfair dismissal must be an error as the claimant’s engagement did not end until 4/6/2024 (his claim was presented on the 19/9/2024). This claim does not assert an unfair dismissal claim by way of amendment.

[5]It was observed at the previous preliminary hearing that in respect of all the other claims, the details were not specified or particularised.

[6]The claimant was given leave to provide those details by the 9/8/2024. Those details were provided (it seems) on the 19/8/2024 (pages 58-97). In its amended response, the respondent applied for the preliminary hearing listed for the 1/10/2024 to consider striking out the claims and/or a deposit Order.

[7]The preliminary hearing on the 1/10/2024 did not take place due to lack of judicial capacity and the respondent’s application (pages 113-116) was considered at this hearing.

[8]Mr Mitchell summarised the respondent’s position and the claimant responded to that.

[9]The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 provide under Rule 38: Case Number: 2305009/2023 3 38.—(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;

[10]It is agreed that as formulated, the claimant’s claim of direct age discrimination has no reasonable prospect of success. As per the respondent’s submission, putting aside the fact that no age range has been identified, the allegation as framed relates to his status as a student, not the protected characteristic of age.

[11]The claim for indirect age discrimination similarly has no reasonable prospect of success. The PCP relied upon relates to advertising hourly paid roles for students (page 70). The comparator group or pool are not students. This PCP does not therefore apply to them.

[12]Mr Mitchell submitted that there was no protected act for a claim of victimisation. That is accepted. The protected act refers to students, their rates of pay and other forms of disadvantage (as perceived by the claimant). There is no protected act cited by the claimant which comes within s.27(2) Equality Act 2010.

[13]It is agreed, even if the claimant’s status when working for the respondent brought him within the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 (SI 1994/1623), that his engagement had not ended at the time he presented his claim. He cannot therefore rely upon that Order.

[14]Furthermore, the claimant has not identified any sums which are ‘wages’ due to him, from which deductions have been made; in order to bring the claim within s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996. His complaint and indeed the general thrust of this litigation is his perception that students were not able to progress into better paid permanent roles with the respondent. As an aside, whilst the claimant was on an international student visa, he was only allowed under the terms of that visa to work 20 hours per week in termtime. He was granted indefinite leave to remain on the 16/11/2022, from that point in time there was no restriction upon how many hours he worked. It was the claimant’s case that the respondent’s position that it was strongly recommended that full-time students did not work more than 10 hours a Case Number: 2305009/2023 4 week . The respondent’s restriction forms part of the claimant’s claim, but it does not form a claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

[15]In his lengthy document, the claimant has not identified any ‘other payments’ which he says are due to him.

[16]The claimant may well be entirely right and correct in what he says about hourly-paid students who work for the respondent. He does not however have legal basis to bring such a claim in the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal.

[17]Finally, the claimant had confirmed to the respondent he was not pursuing a claim under s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996.

[18]The respondent’s application is successful and the claim is struck out in its entirety. Approved by