Claimant v London Underground Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant abandoned five of nine allegations. The remaining allegations failed because the claimant provided no evidence whatsoever linking any treatment to his age or that comparators would have been treated differently. The claimant's case was based on 'a feeling' rather than facts. The tribunal found the claimant failed the CBTC course due to lack of commitment and effort, not discrimination.
The claimant abandoned all four allegations of harassment during the hearing. The one allegation pursued (regarding Mr Attard's comment) failed because the claimant could not explain how the choice of words used was in any way related to age, and there was no evidence the conduct had the proscribed purpose or effect under s.26 Equality Act 2010.
The claimant failed to establish four of six alleged PCPs on the facts. More critically, he presented no cogent evidence of group disadvantage. He randomly selected a dividing line of 45+ years versus under 45 without explanation. His statistical evidence was thin and unreliable. Evidence he presented about neuroplasticity actually undermined rather than supported his case.
Facts
The claimant, aged 55, applied for a Service Controller role requiring completion of a CBTC training course. He failed the course, which the tribunal found was due to lack of commitment and effort, not discrimination. The respondent offered him a second opportunity with additional support, which he declined, instead raising a grievance and then bringing tribunal proceedings claiming direct age discrimination (nine allegations), harassment related to age (four allegations), and indirect age discrimination (six PCPs). During a five-day hearing in April 2025, he abandoned five direct discrimination allegations and all four harassment allegations. All remaining claims were comprehensively dismissed.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The judge then awarded costs of £10,080 against the claimant, finding the entire claim had no reasonable prospect of success from the outset and that the claimant acted unreasonably in bringing and continuing proceedings. The claimant had no evidence linking any treatment to age beyond 'a feeling'. His conduct in making baseless allegations against two witnesses (who were then not called) was unreasonable and caused unnecessary costs.
Practical note
A litigant in person pursuing discrimination claims based solely on subjective feeling rather than any factual evidence linking treatment to a protected characteristic, and who abandons allegations during the hearing after the respondent has incurred defence costs, may face a substantial costs award for unreasonable conduct even without legal representation.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2218532/2024
- Decision date
- 10 June 2025
- Hearing type
- costs
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Service Controller (applied for)
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No