Cases2305513/2023

Claimant v The Pensions Regulator

7 May 2025Before Employment Judge CawthrayLondon Southremote video

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Othernot determined

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.

Detrimentnot determined

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

Balls v Downham Market High School [2011] IRLR 217Ukegheson v Haringey London Borough Council [2015] ICR 1285Merchkarov v Citibank NA [2016] ICR 1121Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] EWCA Civ 330Ahir v British Airways [2017] EWCA Civ 1392Cox v Adecco Group UK [2021] ICR 1307Mbuisa v Cygnet Healthcare Ltd EAT 0119/18Hemdan v Ishmail [2017] IRLR 228SCA Packaging Limited v Boyle [2009] ICR 1056Cruickshank v Vaw Motorcast Ltd [2002] ICR 729Alao v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust [2022] EAT 135Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd [2013] ICR 591

Statutes

Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 reg.5Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 reg.7Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 r.38Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 r.40Equality Act 2010 s.6

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