Free ET Preliminary Hearing Skeleton Argument Template — ETPR 2024 r.52-54 (UK)

Skeleton Argument — Employment Tribunal Preliminary Hearing (Rules 52-54, Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024)

Birmingham Employment Tribunal  ·  Claim 1304512/2026  ·  Hearing 14 July 2026

In the Matter of Aaliyah Mendez v Coventry Care Services Ltd (Claim reference 1304512/2026) before the Birmingham Employment Tribunal.

This skeleton argument is filed on behalf of the CLAIMANT in these proceedings for the preliminary hearing listed on 14 July 2026. The hearing is a COMBINED preliminary hearing — both case management directions and determination of a preliminary issue (rule 52(a)+(b) ETPR 2024), listed under rule 53 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (SI 2024/1155, in force 6 January 2025). The applicable framework for the hearing is rules 52-54 ETPR 2024 — scope of preliminary hearings, direction for preliminary hearing, and preliminary hearings held in public.

Claimant: Aaliyah Mendez
Respondent: Coventry Care Services Ltd
ET claim reference: 1304512/2026
Tribunal: Birmingham Employment Tribunal
This skeleton filed on behalf of: the CLAIMANT in these proceedings
Representative: Imran Sadiq
Firm: Bridgeway Employment Law
Email: imran.sadiq@bridgewayemp.co.uk
Telephone: 0121 568 7421

Hearing date: 14 July 2026
Hearing type: a COMBINED preliminary hearing — both case management directions and determination of a preliminary issue (rule 52(a)+(b) ETPR 2024)

The applicable rules are rules 52-54 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024:
   Rule 52 — scope of preliminary hearings: case management; preliminary issues; settlement exploration; other preliminary matters;
   Rule 53 — direction for preliminary hearing (Tribunal's own initiative or on application);
   Rule 54 — preliminary hearings held in public for preliminary issues; in private for case management.

At this combined preliminary hearing the Tribunal is invited to: (1) approve the Agreed List of Issues set out at Section B below; (2) determine the Respondent's strike-out application of the Claimant's discrimination heads under rule 38(1)(a) ETPR 2024 ("no reasonable prospect"); (3) determine the Claimant's application for specific disclosure of the Respondent's Equality Impact Assessment + safeguarding documentation under rule 33; (4) make case management directions for the final hearing including timetable for disclosure, witness statements and Skeleton Arguments + estimated hearing length.

The Claimant resists strike-out per Anyanwu [2001] UKHL 14 — the discrimination claim is not bound to fail on the pleaded facts. The Claimant's comparators and PCP are particularised; the Respondent's EIA disclosure will materially advance the s.19 indirect discrimination + s.20 reasonable adjustments analysis. The Claimant estimates a 4-day final hearing.

(A) WHY LIST OF ISSUES IS CENTRAL. Per the Presidential Guidance on Case Management and the practice of Employment Tribunals, the List of Issues is the central case-management tool. The parties should agree the List of Issues before the preliminary hearing; the Tribunal at the preliminary hearing approves / amends it; the agreed List binds the parties at the final hearing.

(B) AGREED LIST OF ISSUES. The parties have agreed the following issues:
AGREED LIST OF ISSUES (joint draft per Presidential Guidance):

1. UNFAIR DISMISSAL (ERA 1996 ss.94, 98(2)(b) conduct)
1.1 Did the Respondent dismiss the Claimant on 7 March 2026?
1.2 What was the principal reason for the dismissal?
1.3 If conduct, did the Respondent have a reasonable belief in the misconduct based on reasonable investigation (Burchell)?
1.4 Was the dismissal within the band of reasonable responses (Iceland Frozen Foods)?
1.5 Procedural fairness — ACAS Code compliance, right of representation, right of appeal.

2. DIRECT DISCRIMINATION (EqA 2010 s.13, protected characteristic: disability under s.6)
2.1 Is the Claimant a disabled person within s.6 EqA + Sch.1 (visual impairment + reasonable adjustment threshold)?
2.2 Did the Respondent treat the Claimant less favourably than the comparator (named comparator: Charlotte Wickham)?
2.3 Was the less favourable treatment because of disability?

3. INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION (EqA 2010 s.19)
3.1 Did the Respondent apply a PCP (return-to-work after sickness absence: pre-shift 5am IT system check requirement)?
3.2 Did the PCP put disabled persons at a particular disadvantage?
3.3 Did it put the Claimant at that disadvantage?
3.4 Is the PCP a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim?

4. REASONABLE ADJUSTMENTS (EqA 2010 ss.20-21)
4.1 Did the Respondent know or ought reasonably to have known of the disability?
4.2 What PCP / physical feature / aux aid put the Claimant at substantial disadvantage?
4.3 What reasonable adjustments were available?
4.4 Did the Respondent fail to make them?

5. REMEDY
5.1 Basic + compensatory award (UD).
5.2 Vento band engaged (discrimination heads).
5.3 Polkey deduction (UD).
5.4 Contributory fault.

(C) CONTESTED LIST OF ISSUES. The following issues remain in dispute and are invited to be determined or directed at this hearing:
CONTESTED ISSUES at this preliminary hearing:

1. The Respondent contests issues 3.1-3.4 on the basis that the alleged PCP was not in fact applied — the 5am IT check was guidance only, not mandatory. The Claimant submits this is a triable issue of fact for the final hearing, not a preliminary determination.
2. The Respondent disputes the Claimant's identification of Charlotte Wickham as a valid comparator (issue 2.2). The Claimant submits this is for the final hearing.
3. The Respondent contests reasonable adjustments (issues 4.1-4.4) on the basis the Claimant did not formally request adjustments. The Claimant submits the duty under s.20 EqA is anticipatory and the Respondent's actual / constructive knowledge is for the final hearing.

(D) PRELIMINARY ISSUES IDENTIFIED. The following issues should be determined as preliminary issues under rule 52(b) ETPR 2024 (rather than at the final hearing):
No issues should be determined as preliminary issues at this hearing. The Claimant submits all 5 issue categories are intertwined with the substantive facts and should be determined together at the final hearing. The Respondent's strike-out application is the only preliminary application before the Tribunal.

(E) ANYANWU THRESHOLD ON DISCRIMINATION + WHISTLEBLOWING. Per Anyanwu v South Bank Students Union [2001] UKHL 14 and Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] EWCA Civ 330, discrimination and whistleblowing claims rarely succumb to strike-out — the Tribunal must take the claim at its highest unless conclusively contradicted by clear and uncontested documentary evidence.

Issues narrative:
The Claimant invites the Tribunal to approve the List of Issues with the contested PCP framing at issue 3.1 reserved for final hearing. The Claimant relies on Anyanwu [2001] UKHL 14 — discrimination claims rarely succumb to strike-out where the primary facts are pleaded and reasonable inference is open to the Tribunal.

(A) APPLICATION STATUS. this party OPPOSES a strike-out / deposit application made by the other party.

(B) STRIKE-OUT FRAMEWORK — RULE 38 ETPR 2024. Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 provides for strike-out on five grounds:
   (i) no reasonable prospect of success;
   (ii) scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious conduct;
   (iii) not actively pursued;
   (iv) non-compliance with order / practice direction;
   (v) no longer possible to have a fair hearing.

Strike-out is a draconian remedy. Per Anyanwu [2001] UKHL 14 and Ezsias [2007] EWCA Civ 330, the threshold is high — particularly for discrimination and whistleblowing claims, where the Tribunal must take the claim at its highest unless conclusively contradicted by clear and uncontested documentary evidence. Per Cox v Adecco [2021] EAT 159, where the claimant is a litigant in person, the Tribunal must take particular care before striking out for unparticularised pleadings — direction for particulars is usually the appropriate first response.

(C) STRIKE-OUT GROUNDS IN THIS CASE. The Respondent's strike-out application of the discrimination heads is OPPOSED. The Respondent relies on rule 38(1)(a) ETPR 2024 ("no reasonable prospect"). The Claimant submits:

(a) Per Anyanwu v South Bank Students Union [2001] UKHL 14, the Tribunal must take the discrimination claim at its highest unless conclusively contradicted by clear and uncontested documentary evidence. Lord Steyn (at [24]): "[Discrimination cases are] generally fact-sensitive, and their proper determination is always vital in our pluralistic society."

(b) Per Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] EWCA Civ 330 (Maurice Kay LJ), strike-out for "no reasonable prospect" is reserved for cases where central facts are in dispute on documents and unlikely to change at oral evidence. Here, the central facts (whether the PCP was applied; whether the Respondent knew of the disability; whether reasonable adjustments were available) are matters of oral evidence not yet tested.

(c) The Claimant's pleadings particularise: the protected characteristic (disability — registered partial sight 2018); the PCP (pre-shift 5am IT system check requirement); the substantial disadvantage (Claimant unable to complete IT check at 5am due to visual impairment + lack of screen-reader software); the comparator (Charlotte Wickham, no disability, did not face the PCP impact); the failure to make adjustment (Claimant requested screen-reader software in October 2025, not provided).

(d) Per Cox v Adecco [2021] EAT 159 (Linden J), where pleadings could be particularised by further information, that is the appropriate response — not strike-out. The Claimant offers further particulars on application.

(D) DEPOSIT ORDER — RULE 40 ETPR 2024. Rule 40 permits a deposit order up to £1,000 per allegation having little reasonable prospect of success (total cap £8,000). The order is a condition of continuing the allegation; failure to pay within 21 days strikes out the allegation; costs follow if the party pursues the allegation to hearing and loses. Position: No deposit order should be made. The Claimant submits the discrimination heads have more than "little reasonable prospect" — the central facts are particularised, the comparator is named, the PCP is articulated, the failure to make adjustments is specific. The threshold of "little reasonable prospect" under rule 40 ETPR 2024 is not engaged. If the Tribunal is inclined to consider a deposit, the Claimant submits the maximum should not exceed £50 per allegation in light of the Claimant's means (currently in receipt of Universal Credit and PIP enhanced rate).

(E) RECONSIDERATION — RULES 68-71 ETPR 2024. Rules 68-71 ETPR 2024 permit reconsideration of a judgment where it is necessary in the interests of justice. Application must be made within 14 days of the original decision. Position: No prior decision has been made requiring reconsideration. The Claimant reserves the right to apply for reconsideration under rules 68-71 ETPR 2024 of any decision adverse to the Claimant arising at this preliminary hearing, within the 14-day window where necessary in the interests of justice.

Strike-out narrative:
The Claimant invites the Tribunal to dismiss the Respondent's strike-out application and direct that the discrimination heads proceed to final hearing alongside the unfair dismissal claim. The Tribunal is reminded that the Respondent's strike-out application was not foreshadowed in the ET3 (filed 21 May 2026) and only emerged on 4 June 2026 — the Claimant has had limited time to prepare opposing material.

(A) SPECIFIC DISCLOSURE — RULE 33 ETPR 2024. Rule 33 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 requires the parties to disclose all relevant documents to each other ahead of the final hearing. Where one party believes the other has relevant documents not yet disclosed, the party may apply for specific disclosure under rule 33. Specific disclosure sought / opposed in this case: The Claimant applies under rule 33 ETPR 2024 for specific disclosure of the following categories not voluntarily disclosed by the Respondent:

(i) Equality Impact Assessment for the 5am IT check policy (introduced January 2024) — relevant to indirect discrimination s.19 EqA legitimate aim + proportionate means analysis;
(ii) HR records relating to the Claimant's October 2025 request for screen-reader software (request form + internal correspondence + outcome) — relevant to reasonable adjustments s.20 EqA;
(iii) Absence records and return-to-work paperwork for Charlotte Wickham (comparator) — relevant to direct discrimination s.13 EqA comparator analysis;
(iv) Safeguarding records relating to the alleged misconduct (date of alleged incident, witness statements, complaint procedure) — relevant to unfair dismissal Burchell test.

The Respondent has been requested informally (letter dated 24 May 2026) and has refused. The Claimant invites a specific disclosure order with compliance by 14 days from the order.

(B) WITNESS SUMMONS. The Tribunal may issue a witness summons compelling a third party (not a party to the proceedings) to attend the final hearing and give evidence. The summons is appropriate where the witness has relevant evidence and will not attend voluntarily. Witness summons sought in this case: The Claimant applies for a witness summons compelling the attendance at final hearing of Dr Eleanor Pritchard (former Head of HR at the Respondent, in post during the October 2025 reasonable-adjustment request period, now retired and not contactable by the Claimant) under rule 33 ETPR 2024. Dr Pritchard will speak to: (a) the receipt and internal handling of the reasonable adjustment request; (b) the existence of the EIA documentation; (c) the Respondent's approach to the Claimant's disability. The Claimant has had no response to a written invitation dated 28 May 2026 and a summons is necessary.

(C) AMENDMENT — SELKENT PRINCIPLES. An application to amend the claim or response is determined under the principles in Selkent Bus Co v Moore [1996] ICR 836 — balancing the hardship and injustice of allowing the amendment against the hardship and injustice of refusing it. Relevant factors: the nature of the amendment (re-labelling vs new cause of action); the time at which the amendment is sought (early stage favours grant); the applicability of any limitation period (s.111 ERA / s.123 EqA). Amendment application in this case: The Claimant seeks permission to amend the ET1 paragraph 17 (currently pleading direct discrimination) to plead, in the alternative, indirect discrimination under EqA s.19 in respect of the same factual basis. Per Selkent Bus Co v Moore [1996] ICR 836, this is a re-labelling amendment of the same factual matrix; the Respondent suffers no prejudice (the factual evidence is the same); the amendment is sought at the earliest opportunity (pre-disclosure); refusal would cause the Claimant material prejudice (loss of a viable cause of action on the same facts). The Claimant relies on Selkent to invite the Tribunal to grant the amendment.

(D) MERVYN v BW CONTROLS [2020] EWCA Civ 393 — DIRECTIONS ENFORCEMENT. Where case management directions have not been complied with, the Tribunal may issue an "unless" order — directing compliance failing which the claim or response will be struck out without further hearing. The respondent reserves the right to seek an "unless" order where necessary.

Disclosure / witness narrative:
Per Mervyn v BW Controls [2020] EWCA Civ 393, the Tribunal's case management powers under rule 33 are robust where one party fails to engage with disclosure obligations. The Claimant invites the Tribunal to make the specific disclosure order + witness summons + amendment direction together to avoid further preliminary hearings.

(A) PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS. The party invites the Tribunal to direct the following standard sequence:
   Mutual disclosure: by 12 August 2026 (rule 33 ETPR 2024)
   Agreed Bundle index: by 2 September 2026
   Witness statements exchanged: by 16 September 2026
   Skeleton Arguments exchanged: by 7 October 2026

(B) FINAL HEARING LENGTH ESTIMATE. The party estimates the final hearing length at 4 day(s). The estimate accounts for: pleaded issues; witness numbers (each side); documentary bundle volume; legal complexity; remedy determination (joined or split).

(C) PROPOSED HEARING FORMAT. The party invites the Tribunal to list the final hearing IN PERSON at the Tribunal venue.

(D) PRESIDENTIAL GUIDANCE COMPLIANCE. The party will comply with the Presidential Practice Direction on Witness Statements (witness statements stand as evidence-in-chief), the Presidential Guidance on General Case Management, and the Presidential Guidance on Agenda for Case Management and List of Issues.

(E) ACAS CONCILIATION. The Tribunal is invited to note that ACAS Conciliation under section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 remains available throughout the proceedings and the party would welcome any stay for ACAS conciliation if the Tribunal considers it appropriate.

Directions narrative:
The Claimant invites the Tribunal to list the final hearing for 4 days in October-November 2026. The proposed timetable allows: (a) 4 weeks for mutual disclosure post-this hearing; (b) 3 weeks for bundle preparation; (c) 2 weeks for witness statements; (d) 3 weeks for Skeleton Arguments. The Claimant proposes in-person hearing given disability access requirements (BSL interpreter to be booked through HM Courts and Tribunals Service; physical bundle access to be facilitated). The Claimant intends to call 3 witnesses (Claimant + 2 lay witnesses) and remind the Tribunal that the Respondent has indicated 4 witnesses.

   Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (SI 2024/1155) — rr.52-54 preliminary hearings; r.38 strike-out; r.40 deposit order; r.33 disclosure; rr.68-71 reconsideration.
   Employment Tribunals Act 1996 s.18A ACAS Early Conciliation.
   Anyanwu v South Bank Students Union [2001] UKHL 14 — strike-out threshold for discrimination claims.
   Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] EWCA Civ 330 — strike-out threshold for whistleblowing claims.
   Selkent Bus Co v Moore [1996] ICR 836 — amendment of ET pleadings.
   Cox v Adecco [2021] EAT 159 — LiP particulars before strike-out.
   Mervyn v BW Controls [2020] EWCA Civ 393 — "unless" order enforcement.
   Presidential Guidance on General Case Management; Presidential Practice Direction on Witness Statements.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,