Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Vexatious claimsLocal authoritiesEmployment law

Case of the week: Timbo v Greenwich Council for Rights and Equality

by Alan Chalmers 20 Nov 2012
by Alan Chalmers 20 Nov 2012

imbo v Greenwich Council for Rights and Equality

FACTS

Ms Timbo was employed by Greenwich Council for Rights and Equality (GCRE) as an equalities officer.

Ms Timbo’s employment commenced in January 2009. Her probationary period was extended twice. She submitted grievances on 31 July and 18 August. She was suspended on 4 August and informed that her supervisor had submitted a grievance concerning her conduct.

Following a disciplinary hearing, Ms Timbo was summarily dismissed on 2 September. She brought claims of race and sex discrimination. Her claim form did not define her complaints with precision, but GCRE’s applications for a striking-out and deposit orders were refused at a pre-hearing review.

On the third day of a four-day hearing, GCRE’s counsel made an application to strike out the claim on the basis that it was misconceived because:

  • Ms Timbo’s case was one of dual discrimination, which was not provided for by the pre-Equality Act 2010 law; and
  • there was no prospect of Ms Timbo being able to establish primary facts from which the tribunal could infer discrimination.

DECISION

The tribunal upheld the submission of “no case to answer” and dismissed the claim. The tribunal made a finding that Ms Timbo’s credibility was fatally flawed. She appealed to the EAT.

The EAT upheld the appeal. The EAT highlighted that it is important not to strike out discrimination cases as an abuse of process except in the most obvious cases. Discrimination issues should, as a general rule, be decided only after hearing the evidence. Whether or not there was discrimination is a matter to be determined after the evidence is heard. An application to strike out a claim is appropriate only in exceptional or frivolous cases.

The EAT noted that the tribunal had recognised that, to a very significant extent, Ms Timbo’s case depended on her credibility as a witness. The tribunal had identified 10 issues that it could not determine without making a conclusive finding that it could not accept Ms Timbo’s evidence on them. There was a crucial core of disputed facts that could not be determined other than by hearing and evaluating the evidence. The tribunal should have heard all the evidence.

The EAT remitted the case for rehearing in front of a different tribunal.

IMPLICATIONS

This case demonstrates that, despite the Government’s proposals to widen the powers of employment judges to manage weak claims at an early stage, ultimately in many cases the tribunal has no real option but to determine the issues at a full hearing.

Often, particularly in discrimination cases, a strike-out order will be appropriate only in a case in which, even if the claimant’s evidence was accepted in its entirety, it would not be sufficient to give rise to the cause of action claimed. Such cases will be rare.

The EAT noted in the judgment that this case is representative of the type of case often heard by tribunals, where a claimant perceives – rightly or wrongly – that his or her employer has been guilty of unlawful discrimination and attributes all manner of problems and reversals at work to unlawful discrimination.

When such a claimant gives evidence, many of the matters about which they complain may appear to bear no relationship to discrimination: they may appear innocuous; or justified conduct toward the employee; or even the product of bad management or administration unrelated to discrimination. In such a case, the employee’s credibility will be dented.

However, if there are disputed facts, the correct approach should be for tribunals to hear all the evidence and determine such cases on their merits, to see whether or not there is any underlying truth in the allegations.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Alan Chalmers, partner, DLA Piper

 

Guidance from XpertHR on employment tribunals and striking out claims
  • Tomlinson v Governing Body of Queensbridge School and others ET/1307306/2011 and other cases; Tomlinson v Hays Specialist Recruitment Services Ltd ET/1901218/2011 An employment tribunal took the unusual step of striking out discrimination claims against eight schools brought by a teacher whom it suggested genuinely believed that he had been discriminated against. The tribunal struck out the claims on the basis that they had “no reasonable prospect of success”, but was reluctant to find that they were “vexatious”.
  • Streatfeild v London Philharmonic Orchestra Ltd ET/2390772/2011 An employment judge struck out as having “no reasonable prospect of success” the claim of direct religion or belief discrimination brought by a violinist whose name was on a letter published in the Independent newspaper protesting against an invitation to the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra to perform at the 2011 Proms.
  • Employment tribunal claims: XpertHR 2012 survey Most employers have faced a tribunal claim, with unfair dismissal being by far the most common. The latest XpertHR research explores employers’ satisfaction with the tribunal process and the outcomes that they have experienced.
Alan Chalmers

Alan Chalmers is partner at DLA Piper.

previous post
Skills key to future economic success, says Cable
next post
Government invites employers to bid for training funds

You may also like

Minister defends Employment Rights Bill at Acas conference

16 May 2025

CBI chair Soames accuses ministers of not listening...

16 May 2025

Union rep teacher awarded £370k for unfair dismissal

15 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

Contract cleaner loses EAT race discrimination appeal

14 May 2025

Construction workers win compensation claim against defunct employer

9 May 2025

Zero-hours workers’ rights to be extended from beyond...

8 May 2025

Employment tribunal backlog up 23% in a year

7 May 2025

Ministers urged to outlaw misuse of NDAs

7 May 2025

Reform UK councils’ staff face WFH ban

6 May 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+