Claimant v The Lichfield Diocesan Board of Finance
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal held the claimant was a 'worker' for the purposes of bringing a protected disclosure detriment complaint by extending the definition following Gilham v Ministry of Justice based on ECHR rights. The specific complaints will be clarified at a further hearing.
The tribunal held the claimant could pursue complaints under s.49 EQA as the holder of a personal office (assistant curate), based on a perception he was disabled by reason of autism. Four specific complaints were identified, some allowed by amendment, to be determined at final hearing.
The claimant withdrew any complaints of indirect disability discrimination during the preliminary hearing.
The tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider a complaint under s.53 EQA (qualifications body) against the respondent as it was the Bishop, not the respondent, who had responsibility to sign off IME2 training. This claim was dismissed.
Facts
The claimant, an ordained Church of England deacon serving as an assistant curate in training in the Diocese of Lichfield, brought complaints of whistleblowing detriment and disability discrimination based on a perception he was autistic. He was licensed for a four-year term beginning 30 June 2019, received a stipend of £24,860, and housing. He was not ordained as a priest during his curacy. On 16 November 2022, the Bishop of Stafford informed him he had not met the standards expected for completion of IME2 training. The claimant did not have a contract of employment with the respondent.
Decision
The tribunal held the claimant was a 'worker' for whistleblowing purposes by extending the definition under Gilham v Ministry of Justice based on ECHR rights, as there was no justification for excluding clergy from such protection. He was not an employee under s.39 EQA but could pursue disability discrimination complaints under s.49 as a personal office-holder. The claim under s.53 (qualifications body) was dismissed as the respondent lacked authority to confer the IME2 qualification. Several direct discrimination complaints were allowed to proceed, some by amendment.
Practical note
Clergy serving as assistant curates can bring whistleblowing and disability discrimination claims despite lacking employment contracts, by relying on extended definitions under human rights principles (Gilham) and as personal office-holders under the Equality Act.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2409635/2022
- Decision date
- 23 September 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- charity
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Assistant Curate
- Salary band
- £20,000–£25,000
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No