Claimant v The Pensions Regulator
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim under Regulation 5 Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 for less favourable treatment. Respondent applied to strike out on no reasonable prospects basis. Tribunal refused strike out, finding it could not conclude no reasonable prospects at this stage without hearing full evidence. Claim will proceed to full merits hearing.
Claim under Regulation 7 Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 for detriment for bringing complaint about alleged infringement of part-time worker regulations. Respondent applied to strike out on no reasonable prospects basis. Tribunal refused strike out, finding it could not conclude no reasonable prospects at this stage without hearing full evidence. Claim will proceed to full merits hearing.
Facts
Claimant worked part-time for The Pensions Regulator. He brought claims under Part-Time Workers Regulations 2000 alleging less favourable treatment and detriment between December 2022 and July 2023. Respondent applied to strike out the claims on no reasonable prospects basis and alternatively for deposit order. Claimant also relied on anxiety as disability. He had received therapy since 2018 and was prescribed medication in July 2023. He had two periods of sickness absence in April and June 2023 due to work-related anxiety.
Decision
Tribunal dismissed respondent's strike out and deposit order applications, finding it could not conclude there were no or little reasonable prospects of success without hearing full evidence at final hearing. Tribunal also determined claimant was disabled person under Equality Act 2010 due to anxiety from 2018 onwards, finding that but for therapy treatment the anxiety would have had substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities and the effect had lasted more than 12 months by the material time.
Practical note
Strike out applications in part-time worker cases with disputed facts should rarely succeed at preliminary stage without hearing full evidence, particularly where claimant is self-represented and issues require examination of context and motivation.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2305513/2023
- Decision date
- 7 May 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No