Claimant v Gambling Commission

Outcome

Facts

Three unrepresented claimants challenged the Civil Service Compensation Scheme's cap and taper provisions as age discriminatory. Their employment was terminated on voluntary redundancy when they were over age 60, resulting in reduced compensation (capped at 6 months' pay). They argued their cases were distinguishable from the comprehensive Newby sample case judgment because they worked for the Gambling Commission (not civil service) and the scheme was funded by licence fees not public funds. All claims were part of large-scale group litigation managed through a Presidential Case Management Order.

Decision

The tribunal struck out all three claims under Rule 38 on two grounds: (1) no reasonable prospects of success, because the Newby judgment's comprehensive analysis of justification and proportionality applied equally to these claimants—the funding source was immaterial as the tribunal emphasised fairness over cost; and (2) abuse of process, because the claimants were aware of the group litigation procedure and sample cases but did not seek to participate or raise their distinction earlier, and permitting re-litigation would undermine the entire case management process.

Practical note

Legal authorities cited