Tribunal Upholds Appeal: Lack of Notice in Strike-Out Hearing
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has upheld an appeal, finding that a claimant was not given sufficient notice before a strike-out decision was made against them.
• public
Employment Appeal Tribunal Finds Procedural Unfairness
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled in favour of Mr M Shubita, the claimant, in a case against the University of Leeds Beckett, the University of Warwick, and individual respondents. The EAT found that the original Employment Tribunal (ET) had acted unfairly by striking out Mr Shubita's claim against Warwick without providing him with reasonable notice.
Background of the Case
Mr Shubita, formerly employed by Leeds University, brought claims of race discrimination and whistleblowing detriment against the university after he wasn't shortlisted for a promotion. He also filed a claim against Warwick University, alleging that they facilitated a discriminatory outcome in the assessment of his application.
The initial claim against Warwick was struck out by the Employment Tribunal, a decision Mr Shubita appealed. His appeal centred on the argument that he was not given adequate notice that the strike-out would be considered at the hearing, thus denying him a fair opportunity to present his case.
The Tribunal's Decision
His Honour Judge Wayne Beard, presiding over the EAT, agreed that the claimant had not received sufficient notice. The judge emphasised that while Employment Tribunals have the power to strike out claims, they must give the party in question a reasonable opportunity to make representations.
Judge Beard cited several cases, including Cox v Adecco and Hassan v Tesco Stores Limited, which highlight the importance of procedural fairness, especially when dealing with litigants in person (individuals representing themselves). These cases stress that tribunals should ensure the affected party is aware of the application for strike-out and has a genuine opportunity to respond.
The EAT found that the claimant, who was representing himself, was required to address complicated facts and legal concepts without prior warning. The hearing notice indicated that only case management would be discussed.
Implications of the Ruling
The EAT overturned the original strike-out decision and remitted the case back to the Employment Tribunal for reconsideration. This means the claim against Warwick University will be re-examined. The EAT clarified that it was not determining whether a strike-out was inappropriate, only that the process followed was flawed.
The tribunal acknowledged that Employment Judge Wade was professional, but the case will be allocated by the Regional Employment Judge.
Key Takeaways for Employers
This case serves as a reminder for employers and tribunals alike: procedural fairness is paramount. Reasonable notice must be given before significant decisions, such as striking out a claim, are made, particularly when dealing with individuals who aren't legally represented. Failing to do so can lead to appeals and further legal challenges.
Read the entire judgement here: Shubita v University of Leeds Beckett & Ors [2025] EAT 157
