Claimant v Holding Creatives Limited t/a Peter Mikic Interiors

The tribunal found the allegations to be inherently implausible and unsupported by evidence. The claimant alleged colleagues called him offensive names daily for five months, but audio recordings provided were inaudible and inconclusive. Other race-related allegations were not properly linked to the claimant's own race or were objectively not derogatory.

The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant admitted he did not disclose his Buddhist background to anyone at the respondent, making it implausible that colleagues could have made discriminatory remarks about his religion.

The tribunal found that allegations about colleagues discussing women at a social event or calling the claimant a 'dirty old man' were either not properly linked to age as a protected characteristic or were inherently implausible, with no reasonable prospect of establishing discrimination.

The tribunal found the allegations were not properly linked to the claimant's sex but rather to alleged beliefs about him being homophobic or other unprotected characteristics. The conduct complained of did not amount to less favourable treatment because of sex.

The tribunal found the allegations related to alleged entrapment regarding homophobia but were not actually because of or related to the claimant's sexual orientation, and were inherently implausible with no reasonable prospect of success.

The tribunal found that statements like 'Italians are nice' were not objectively derogatory or offensive and could not amount to harassment. The claimant's allegations were not properly related to his own race and the claimed effect (entrapment into xenophobia) did not satisfy the statutory test.

The allegations were struck out for the same reasons as the direct discrimination claims based on religion - the claimant had not disclosed his religious background making the alleged harassment implausible.

The allegations about being called a 'dirty old man' were found to be inherently implausible, particularly the claim that such conduct continued throughout employment, and had no reasonable prospect of establishing harassment related to age.

The allegations were not properly related to sex but to alleged beliefs about the claimant being homophobic or a sexual predator. The conduct complained of did not satisfy the statutory test for harassment.

The allegations about entrapment regarding homosexuality were found to be inherently implausible and not properly related to the claimant's sexual orientation but rather to alleged beliefs about him being homophobic.

The tribunal found no reasonable prospect that any of the five alleged protected acts relied on by the claimant amounted to protected acts. The statements and emails complained of did not include express or implicit allegations of a breach of the Equality Act or anything done for purposes connected with the Act.