Ms L M Whittaker and Mr M Parr v Inglenorth Contracting Ltd: 2406679/2024 and 2406680/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2406679/2024, 2406680/2024

Between

Ms L M Whittaker (1) Mr M Parr (2)Claimant

Inglenorth Contracting Limited RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARINGRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Johnson

Mr Simon Robinson (instructed by solicitor) for claimant

Mr Robert Lassey (instructed by counsel) for respondent

Date 25 April 2025

JUDGMENT

(1) The complaint of a failure by the respondent to make reasonable adjustments contrary to sections 20 & 21 Equality Act 2010 is dismissed upon withdrawal by the first claimant.

(2) The complaint of harassment brought by the first claimant contrary to section 26 Equality Act 2010 is struck out in accordance with Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024.

(3) The claim brought by the second claimant is dismissed upon withdrawal by the second claimant because it has been accepted by the Tribunal in error as a duplicate claim.

REASONS

[1]The claimants presented a claim on 8 October 2024 following a period of early conciliation from 14 August to 18 September 2024. The first claimant identified a complaint of disability discrimination, and the second respondent was named as a claimant being the first claimant’s partner. 1 of 2 Case Number: 2406679/2024 & 2406680/2024

[2]The second claimant Mr Martin Parr has issued proceedings separately under case number 2407056/2024 bringing an unfair dismissal complaint and which is listed for a final hearing in June 2026. There was no dispute that this claim could be withdrawn and dismissed.

[3]In relation to the first claimant’s claim, Judge Slater asked in the Tribunal’s letter dated 15 January 2025 that further information be provided in support of this claim identifying what forms of discrimination were being relied upon by the claimant as it was not clear from section 8.2 of the claim form.

[4]The first claimant’s solicitor identified complaints of reasonable adjustments contrary to sections 20 & 21 Equality Act 2010 (EQA) and harassment contrary to section 26 EQA in their letter dated 29 January 2025.

[5]Judge Slater wrote to the first claimant’s solicitor on 14 March 2025 and explained that the Tribunal was concerned that the claim had no or little reasonable prospect of success. Consequently, the preliminary hearing case management listed for 25 April 2025 was converted to public preliminary hearing to consider the claim should be subject to strike out (Rule 38(1)(a)) or alternatively a deposit order (Rule 40).

[6]At this preliminary hearing, Mr Robinson confirmed that the complaint of reasonable adjustments was withdrawn, leaving the remaining complaint of harassment to be considered.

[7]Having heard Mr Robinson’s and Mr Lassey’s submissions today, having reviewed the grounds of complaint contained within the claim and having considered relevant case law, I determined that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success. Accordingly, I determined that the claim must be struck out.

[8]The respondent has confirmed that it reserves its position regarding an application for costs and any such application if made, will be done in accordance with the procedure described in Rule 75. Approved by