Discrimination appeal vests in trustee; unfair-dismissal claim stays personal

A bankrupt employee's appeal against dismissal of Equality Act complaints that seek both financial loss and personal remediesNationalarchives vests wholly in the trustee in bankruptcyNationalarchives and stays there after dischargeNationalarchives. The unfair-dismissal complaint is different: it is personal to the employeeNationalarchives, never vestsNationalarchives, and can still be pursuedNationalarchives. A costs appeal against a costs order that the discharge has wiped out is academicNationalarchives and must be dismissedNationalarchives.

Dr Piepenbrock worked for the London School of Economics from 1 September 2011 until his dismissal on 2 September 2014. He claimed unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from disability and victimisation. After his High Court action was tried and dismissed in 2018, the stayed employment tribunal claim was heard in April 2022 and every complaint was dismissed in June 2022. He appealed the liability decisionNationalarchives, and later appealed a September 2023 costs decisionNationalarchives ordering him to pay the respondent's costs on the indemnity basis. He was made bankrupt on 22 April 2024Nationalarchives and automatically discharged on 22 April 2025Nationalarchives. The trustee, the Official ReceiverNationalarchives, twice refused to assign the vested rights of action back to him, in April and September 2026.

The costs appeal was dismissed for two reasons.Nationalarchives First, sections 281(1) and 382 of the Insolvency Act 1986 released the claimant on discharge from the costs-order debtNationalarchives, which the respondent accepted on 1 October 2026, so there was nothing left to fight about; criticism of his conduct in the costs reasons was not enough to keep it alive. Second, under Heath v Tang a bankrupt has no standing to appeal a provable debt in any eventNationalarchives.

The unfair-dismissal complaint survived intact. Following Grady v HM Prison Service, it is personal rather than proprietaryNationalarchives, so neither the complaint nor the appeal from its dismissal vested in the Official ReceiverNationalarchives. The claimant may pursue the liability-appeal grounds that bear on the unfair-dismissal outcomeNationalarchives, including procedural challenges so far as they might disturb it, but must confirm in writing within 14 days of the seal dateNationalarchives or that part may be dismissed without further referenceNationalarchives.

The disability-discrimination and victimisation complaints did not survive.NationalarchivesNationalarchives Because compensation was sought for injury to feelings and for pain, suffering and loss of amenity alongside loss of remunerationNationalarchivesNationalarchives, each Equality Act complaint was hybridNationalarchives and the appeal from its dismissal vested wholly in the Official ReceiverNationalarchives on bankruptcyNationalarchives, applying Ord v Upton and Khan v Trident SafeguardsNationalarchives. Discharge made no differenceNationalarchives, and no line could be drawn between lost earnings before and after dischargeNationalarchives; the trustee takes past and future loss of earnings alikeNationalarchives. The "very unusual" facts of Mulkerrins, where a negligence claim that caused the bankruptcy itself stayed with the bankrupt, did not assist. Nor could liability be decided now with remedy parked for laterNationalarchives, since the whole complaint remains vestedNationalarchives.

One route remains for those complaints. Following the majority in Khan, the claimant may apply within 14 days of the order to amendNationalarchives so as to irrevocably relinquish every claim to compensation for loss of remunerationNationalarchives and confine the remedies, if liability is ever established, to a declaration, injury to feelings and pain, suffering and loss of amenityNationalarchives. That application needs no trustee involvement where the trustee will not pursue the claims itself.Nationalarchives Absent such an application, that part of the liability appeal may be dismissed.Nationalarchives Further delay to chase the trustee under section 303 of the 1986 Act was refusedNationalarchives in the interests of finality.

Legal basis: Insolvency Act 1986, sections 281, 283, 303, 306 and 382Nationalarchives, with Grady v HM Prison Service, Khan v Trident Safeguards, Ord v Upton and Heath v TangNationalarchives.