McKinson v Hackney Community College & Ors

Case management may require a discrimination claimant to identify and particularise the complaints advanced, so that the issues are clear to the parties and tribunal. The tribunal may encourage concentration on significant issues and, where fair, arrange issues to be tried first. Case management must remain within the procedural rules. It cannot require a claimant to select only part of a properly pleaded claim for determination where the claim form encompasses further incidents. A victimisation claim requires identification of the protected act, including its nature and date. Where proposed additional material supplies detail of an existing claim, it may be treated as an amendment and permission granted.

The claimant appealed aspects of a case management order made by the Employment Tribunal following a case management discussion. His claims concerned race discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal arising from his employment and redundancy.

The order required him to provide a detailed schedule, limited the discrimination and victimisation allegations to specified numbers, required particulars of protected acts, and required a formal amendment application concerning further details. The central issues were the scope of the tribunal’s case-management powers, the adequacy of the order for particulars, and whether permission to amend was required.

The appeal was allowed in part.

1. Identification and management of issues. The Employment Judge was entitled to require the claimant to distil the discrimination and victimisation complaints from a lengthy narrative claim form into a schedule. Clear identification of the claims protects the respondent and assists the tribunal. A list of issues is a valuable case-management tool.
2. Limits on case management. Further management may be appropriate in complex discrimination claims, including encouraging concentration on significant issues or selecting issues for earlier determination where this can be done fairly. Such management must remain within the procedural rules. There was no power to require the claimant to self-select no more than six discrimination incidents and three victimisation incidents where the claim form appeared to encompass more. The relevant limitation was deleted. Discrimination and victimisation allegations may overlap.
3. Protected act. The order requiring particulars of every protected act was upheld. A victimisation claim requires a protected act to be identified under Equality Act 2010, section 27(2). Its nature and date are material, and a general assertion that discrimination was later recognised did not provide sufficient particulars.
4. Amendment. The additional information concerning the fourth respondent was properly characterised as detail of the existing claim. Permission to amend was granted under section 35 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. The Tribunal also revised the timetable for particulars, responses, disclosure and witness statements.

• Employment Tribunal: A case management order was made at a hearing on 25 March 2011 and sent to the parties on 12 April 2011.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: The order for particulars and protected-act information was upheld, the numerical limitation on allegations was deleted, permission to amend was granted, and procedural dates were varied.