Claimant v DM Courier and Transport Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the respondent had legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for not offering employment: the claimant's van was too small for the contract requirements, he did not provide required documentation, the trial did not go well, he failed to respond to contact, and the sick driver returned. The respondent had previously employed black staff and invited the claimant for trial after knowing his race, showing no discriminatory motive.
The tribunal found no evidence of age discrimination. The respondent had previously employed older drivers aged 60 and 67. After meeting the claimant and being aware he was older, the respondent still invited him for a trial and attempted to contact him afterwards. The tribunal accepted the respondent's legitimate reasons for non-engagement were unrelated to age.
Facts
The claimant, a 75-year-old black man, applied for a self-employed owner driver role with the respondent courier company in January 2025. He attended an interview and a trial delivery day with another driver. The respondent did not offer him employment, citing concerns about his van size for the Yodel contract, incomplete documentation, issues during the trial (difficulty with app and taking personal call), lack of response to follow-up calls, and the return of a sick driver. The claimant alleged he was refused employment due to his age and race.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both claims. It found the claimant's comparator (Mr Phil Moore) was not appropriate as he was an existing employee driving company vehicles, not an owner-driver applicant. The tribunal accepted the respondent's multiple legitimate reasons for non-engagement and found no evidence of discriminatory motive, noting the respondent had previously employed older and black workers and proceeded with the claimant's application after being aware of his protected characteristics.
Practical note
In recruitment discrimination cases, claimants must establish more than subjective belief of discrimination; where a respondent demonstrates consistent treatment, prior employment of protected groups, and multiple legitimate business reasons for non-engagement, discrimination claims will fail even where the claimant strongly believes discrimination occurred.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6005152/2025
- Decision date
- 10 November 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Self-employed owner driver
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No