T/a Quickstep Travel v Marshall

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS At the Tribunal On 12 July 2005 Judgment delivered on 2 September 2005 Before

First application alleging constructive dismissal. Struck out as applicant had not yet resigned. Having done so, she was not barred from presenting a second application by reason of cause of action estoppel.

There was supporting text in box 11 of the Application and on a further sheet of paper which set out the background grievance relating to pay and holidays. At the end of the box on the second page of the Application, she said:

The rule in Henderson has been held to apply as much as to Employment Tribunals as to claims in the Civil Court: see Barber and also Divine-Bortey v London Borough of Brent [1998] IRLR 525. In the latter case, Simon Brown LJ at paragraph 32 said thus:

Later, in the judgment of Potter LJ, he speaks of the "need for special circumstances if the full rigour of the rule is to be alleviated", although Mr Daniel contends that, in this case, both the inexperience or lack of legal knowledge of the Respondent and/or the Tribunal's failure to spot that there might be a Disability Discrimination Act claim within the first application cannot amount to special circumstances.