Claimant v Marks and Spencer PLC

Struck out on the basis it had no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal found that even taking the claimant's case at its highest, there were only bare assertions of less favourable treatment compared to older female colleagues, with nothing more than a difference in status and treatment. The claimant failed to establish the necessary causal link required under s136 EqA to shift the burden of proof to the respondent.

Struck out for no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal found that the claimant had provided bare assertions of less favourable treatment as a young man compared to older women, but had not set out facts from which the tribunal could infer discrimination. There was nothing constituting 'something more' beyond a difference in status and treatment as required by Madarassy.

Struck out for no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal found the claimant had not referred to anything that could constitute facts from which harassment related to age could be inferred, and he had no reasonable prospect of meeting the burden of proof under s136 EqA.

Struck out for no reasonable prospect of success. As with age harassment, the tribunal found no facts from which harassment related to sex could be inferred.

Struck out in its entirety for no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal found that even taking the claimant's case at its highest, he had no reasonable prospect of establishing facts from which the tribunal could find the respondent subjected him to detriments because he had done protected acts.

Struck out for no reasonable prospect of success. The claim was based on the discriminatory acts in the July Schedule and alleged failures to pay properly. With the discrimination claims struck out, and the remaining allegations (mainly a few minutes underpayment per shift over 4 months) being insufficiently serious, the tribunal found no reasonable prospect of establishing a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence as required by Malik.

Most allegations (paragraphs 8.2.2, 8.2.3, 8.2.4, 8.2.5, 8.2.6 of the July List of Issues) were struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success as they remained unparticularised despite multiple opportunities to clarify. The allegation at 8.2.1 (failure to pay 15.2 hours overtime for November 2023 to March 2024) was allowed to proceed as it was sufficiently clear and could not be said to have no reasonable prospect of success.

The claim was allowed to proceed. The tribunal found that taking the claimant's case at its highest (that he made a protected disclosure about being told to fabricate fridge temperature records, and was refused management training as a result), it could not strike out the claim given the burden of proof rests on the respondent under s48(2) ERA to show the reason for any detriment. The respondent's explanation would need to be tested at a final hearing.