The Appellant complained of race discrimination by way of victimisation, in that he alleged that the Respondent withdrew its offer to him of a six-month maternity locum position as head of IT, because it became aware of his existing race discrimination complaints against his then-employer, the London Borough of Croydon.

In April 2011, Employment Judge Pritchard, sitting alone at the East London Hearing Centre, struck out the Appellant‟s claim under rule 18(7)(b) the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2004, on the basis that it had no reasonable prospects of success. The Court accepted the explanation from the Respondent that the job offer was withdrawn because a replacement employee was no longer necessary. The Appellant claimed he was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the Respondent‟s witnesses on the conclusion that they reached. The Respondent counterclaimed that the telephone call was innocuous, and no mention was made of the protected acts.

The Employment Judge took the view that the Respondent's case was so obviously credible that a full hearing was not warranted.

The Court of appeal held that there were factual matters, material to the determination of the critical issue of why the job offer was withdrawn, that the Claimant should not be denied the opportunity of investigating. The court continued, stating that applying the relevant principles to the facts of this case, it could not be said that the Appellant‟s claim had no reasonable prospects of success. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

The Judgment of Judge Pritchard was set aside insofar as it relates to victimisation and the case was remitted to an Employment Tribunal for determination.

Download the full judgement here.