Claimant v Cabinet Office
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim relating to CO Role 3 is allowed to proceed to a full hearing. Claims relating to other roles struck out as abuse of process or dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
Claim relating to CO Role 3 is allowed to proceed. The tribunal will consider whether the use of terms 'digital native' or 'social media native' constitutes indirect age discrimination. Other claims struck out or dismissed.
Some victimisation claims allowed to proceed: failure to invite to interview for CO Role 3, and limiting future career prospects. Other claims struck out as outside tribunal jurisdiction (post-recruitment feedback and complaint handling) or as abuse of process (re-litigation of withdrawn claims).
Claims under sections 60, 60A, 111, and 112 Equality Act 2010 struck out. Section 60 cannot proceed as standalone claim without disability discrimination claim. Section 60A expressly excluded from tribunal jurisdiction. Sections 111/112 claims did not relate to contraventions within section 39 scope.
Facts
The claimant, aged 54, applied for seven civil service roles between August 2023 and April 2025, most of which sought 'digital native' or 'social media native' candidates. He was rejected for all roles. He has campaigned against this terminology and brought five separate employment tribunal claims and one judicial review application. Claims 1-4 were withdrawn in March 2025 and dismissed by EJ Klimov. Claim 5, the subject of this hearing, was brought in May 2025 against the Cabinet Office and Civil Service Commission, repeating most earlier complaints and adding claims about CO Role 3.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the majority of the claimant's claims as either outside its jurisdiction or an abuse of process through re-litigation of matters already dismissed. All claims against the Civil Service Commission were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Claims under sections 60, 60A, 111, and 112 Equality Act were also dismissed. Only claims of direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, and two specific victimisation claims relating to CO Role 3 were allowed to proceed to a full hearing.
Practical note
A judgment dismissing claims on withdrawal creates res judicata preventing re-litigation; tribunals have limited jurisdiction over job applicants (only arrangements, terms, and offers - not post-decision feedback or complaint handling); and persistent re-litigation of struck-out claims will be prevented as abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6019968/2025
- Decision date
- 4 October 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Cabinet Office
- Sector
- central government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Senior Digital Communications Officer
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No