Claimant v Secretary of State for Defence
Outcome
Individual claims
This claim survived the preliminary hearing and was not struck out or determined on the merits at this stage. The tribunal's decision on this claim is reserved for a future hearing.
The victimisation claim was struck out because the Employment Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear claims relating to disability for members of the armed forces under paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 9 Equality Act 2010. Parliament lawfully derogated from EU law to completely exclude Part 5 of the Equality Act 2010 relating to disability from applying to armed forces service. Reading in an exception for victimisation would go against the grain of Parliament's clear intention to enact a complete exclusion, and would create a backdoor route to circumvent the legislative exclusion.
Facts
The claimant was a Royal Navy Chaplain from 2012. He and his wife are adoptive parents of two disabled children with complex health needs requiring care. In February 2023, the respondent asked the claimant to go to Bahrain. The claimant said this would be problematic due to his caring responsibilities. In January 2024, the respondent decided not to extend the claimant's offer of employment. The claimant brought claims of direct religion discrimination and victimisation.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the victimisation claim on jurisdictional grounds. Paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 9 Equality Act 2010 completely excludes Part 5 (Work) provisions relating to disability from applying to armed forces service. The tribunal found it could not read in an exception for victimisation without going against Parliament's clear intention to enact a complete exclusion. The direct religion discrimination claim was not struck out and will proceed to a future hearing.
Practical note
Armed forces personnel cannot bring victimisation claims related to disability discrimination because Parliament's complete exclusion under Schedule 9 para 4(3) EqA 2010 cannot be circumvented even through Human Rights Act interpretive obligations.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6003727/2024
- Decision date
- 8 April 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- military
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Chaplain
- Service
- 12 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor