Claimant v Addison Lee Limited

The tribunal struck out the First Claimant's victimisation claim regarding being required to work night shifts in April 2020. The tribunal found there was a straightforward and well-documented innocent explanation: the First Claimant's own email from November 2022 described the 2020 shift changes as consensual arrangements he and the Second Claimant proposed to cover a furloughed colleague during the Coronavirus pandemic, with no mention of any protected act or victimisation.

The First Claimant's remaining victimisation claims relating to alleged delays in 2022 and 2023 in reverting to his previous shift pattern were not struck out. The tribunal found that unlike the 2020 allegation, there was no similarly straightforward and well-documented innocent explanation available, so it could not conclude the Claimant had no realistic chance of establishing a link to his claimed protected act.

The equal pay claims for both Claimants were not struck out. The Respondent conceded the First Claimant was doing like work to Ann Fairclough who was paid more in 2023 and 2024, and the Second Claimant was doing like work to Anna Fairclough and Georgina Smith who were paid more. The Respondent had not articulated any material factor defence despite being given permission to amend its response, leaving the tribunal unable to assess prospects of success.