Claimant v Hunt's Food Group Ltd

The tribunal found that the first claimant's assertion he was dismissed because he reached state pension age of 67 was factually incorrect—he had actually reached state pension age before being employed. The second claimant was 62 and nowhere near state pension age. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that both were dismissed due to genuine performance and productivity concerns, not age.

The claimants alleged the respondent had a policy of enforcing retirement for EU citizens at state pension age which was not applied to British workers. The tribunal found no evidence to support this assertion, which was made for the first time during the hearing. Neither claimant had reached state pension age at the time of dismissal in any event, and the allegation lacked any evidential foundation.

The second claimant alleged she was dismissed because she was married to the first claimant. While the tribunal found this arguably met the stage 1 threshold of the burden of proof test, it accepted the respondent's evidence that she was dismissed for genuine performance concerns including slow productivity, hygiene breaches, and timekeeping issues—not because of her marital status.