HSBC Bank Plc

Judgment approved by the court for handing down MR PARAG BAHAD v HSBC BANK PLC Page 1 [2022] EAT 83 © EAT 2022 Neutral Citation Number: [2022] EAT 83 Case No: EA-2020-000871-JOJ EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 01 June 2022 Before : HIS HONOUR JUDGE JAMES TAYLER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : MR PARAG BAHAD Appellant - and - HSBC BANK PLC Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr A Watson (instructed under the Direct Access Scheme) for the Appellant Mr S Purnell (instructed by Pinsent Masons LLP) for the Respondent Hearing date: 29 March 2022 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the court for handing down MR PARAG BAHAD v HSBC BANK PLC Page 2 [2022] EAT 83 © EAT 2022 SUMMARY PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE The employment tribunal erred in law in striking out claims of race and religious discrimination but not in striking out a claim of protected disclosure detriment. Judgment approved by the court for handing down MR PARAG BAHAD v HSBC BANK PLC Page 3 [2022] EAT 83 © EAT 2022 HIS HONOUR JUDGE JAMES TAYLER: Introduction 1. The claimant attended a preliminary hearing for case management by telephone on 18 September 2020. He was acting as a litigant in person. He was questioned about his claims, which were struck out one by one. After a hearing of one hour and fifteen minutes all of his claims had been dismissed. The first respondent had not applied for strike out, and the hearing had not been listed to consider strike out – so it seems something must have gone wrong. It had, badly. While all of the things that went wrong are not subject of this appeal, they form the background to it. It appears that the employment judge believed that the first respondent had applied for strike out, as possibly did the…