Claimant v Secretary of State for Defence
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim because Schedule 9, paragraph 4(3) of the Equality Act 2010 excludes service in the armed forces from Part 5 insofar as it relates to disability. The tribunal found this exemption breached the claimant's ECHR rights but could not be read compatibly with those rights without contradicting a fundamental feature of the legislation, which Parliament had deliberately enacted.
The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim because Schedule 9, paragraph 4(3) of the Equality Act 2010 excludes service in the armed forces from Part 5 insofar as it relates to disability. The tribunal found this exemption breached the claimant's ECHR rights but could not be read compatibly with those rights without contradicting a fundamental feature of the legislation.
The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim because Schedule 9, paragraph 4(3) of the Equality Act 2010 excludes service in the armed forces from Part 5 insofar as it relates to disability. The tribunal found this exemption breached the claimant's ECHR rights but could not be read compatibly with those rights without contradicting a fundamental feature of the legislation.
Discrimination arising from disability (s.15 EqA). The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim because Schedule 9, paragraph 4(3) of the Equality Act 2010 excludes service in the armed forces from Part 5 insofar as it relates to disability. The tribunal found this exemption breached the claimant's ECHR rights but could not be read compatibly with those rights without contradicting a fundamental feature of the legislation.
Facts
The claimant, diagnosed with dyslexia aged 6, was an Officer Cadet who failed the Army Officer Selection Board (AOSB) psychometric tests twice (August 2022 and October 2023). He alleged that the testing model disadvantaged him and that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments. He was told he could not take the test a third time, ending his childhood ambition to become an Army Officer. He continued to serve successfully in other roles and completed a Junior NCO Course in the top third.
Decision
The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because Schedule 9 paragraph 4(3) of the Equality Act 2010 exempts armed forces service from Part 5 insofar as it relates to disability. Though the tribunal found this exemption breached the claimant's Article 8 and Article 14 ECHR rights, it could not use section 3 Human Rights Act 1998 to interpret the exemption compatibly with those rights, as doing so would contradict a fundamental feature of the legislation that Parliament had deliberately enacted. The claim was dismissed.
Practical note
Employment Tribunals cannot disapply Schedule 9 para 4(3) EqA even where it breaches ECHR rights, because doing so would contradict a fundamental feature of legislation that Parliament deliberately enacted, crossing the constitutional boundary between interpretation and amendment.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3306470/2024
- Decision date
- 17 November 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- military
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- University Officer Training Corps Cadet
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister