A City firm has failed to stop a former partner from bringing sex and pregnancy discrimination claims to the Employment Tribunal by seeking to rely on an arbitration clause in its partnership agreement.

Clyde & Co dismissed Krista Bates van Winkelhof in January. She then filed an Employment Tribunal claim that she had been discriminated against on the grounds of sex and pregnancy.

She also claimed that she had suffered a detriment after making a ‘protected disclosure’, or whistleblowing.

The firm ‘strenuously denies’ the claims.

Clyde & Co applied to the High Court for an order forcing Bates van Winkelhof to stay the action on the basis that her partnership contract contained a clause that disputes should initially be addressed by arbitration, not by a tribunal.

Mrs Justice Slade dismissed the firm’s argument last week, ruling that the arbitration clause cannot enforce a stay of proceedings under the Equality Act or Employment Rights Act.

A Clyde & Co spokeswoman said the firm will appeal the decision because it believed arbitration to be the ‘appropriate first-stage mechanism’ for resolving the dispute.

Bates van Winkelhof’s solicitors, City firm Mishcon de Reya, declined to comment.