Background: 

The claimant brought a claim for harassment and dismissal.  The harassment related to an email received from her manager containing the phrase: 

‘…we talked about Stockholm Syndrome and the desire to make an abuser like you and how this could be seen with this action.’ 

The basis of it was that the manager had no clinical training and could not diagnose Stockholm Syndrome.  She also brought a claim for unfair dismissal although was not within the 2 year qualifying period required in England and Wales. 

Outcome: 

The Tribunal was tasked with an application for strike out and an application for a deposit order.  The strike out was in relation to the unfair dismissal claim considering that the claimant did not have the two years continuous service as required in England and Wales.   The claimant was warned that her claim could be struck out unless she gave reasons why it should continue.   There was nothing in the claim that made it exceptional and there was no realistic prospect of success.  Accordingly, it was struck out. 

On the harassment claim, the Tribunal noted that the claimant would have to demonstrate that the email had the purpose or effect of violating the claimant’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading or humiliating or offensive environment.     The respondent argued that this should also be struck out citing that the comment in the email would not be capable of amounting to such unwanted conduct.  Further, and in the alternative, they argued that even if it was unwanted conduct it could not be related to a relevant protected characteristic.  The Tribunal took into account that the claimant cited that it related to disability discrimination.  The Tribunal was persuaded by the second argument of the respondent as there was nothing in the email to suggest that the reason for the conduct was related to a protected characteristic.  The Tribunal found that there would be little prospect of success and as a result made a deposit order in relation to this claim in the sum of £350.00. 

Practical Guidance for Employers: 

This case looks at some of the more procedural aspects that come with practice in the Tribunal.  This claim shows strike out applications and deposit orders in action. The distinction can be seen with no realistic prospect of success leading to strike out of the unfair dismissal action whereas the ‘little reasonable prospect of success’ leading to the requirement for a deposit order, rather than strike out, of the harassment action.   These orders can be important tools for respondents and the Tribunal in ensuring that frivolous or completely unfounded claims can be dispensed with quickly. 

The full case is available here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6544c7979e05fd000dbe7ca8/Mrs_D_Clay_V_Oasis_Dental_Care_Ltd_-_6000459.2023_-_Judgement___Reasons.pdf