Case 1302766/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. David Hughes and v Whitmans Laboratories Limited SITTING AT: Birmingham Employment Tribunal — 2024
- Case reference
- 1302766/2023
- Decision date
- 5 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Smart
- Panel members
- Ms L Clark, Mr R White
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. David Hughes and
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied for a Senior Manager, Quality Operations role and was not progressed beyond the first stage interview. He alleged direct age discrimination and age-related harassment arising from the recruitment process and matters said to have occurred during or after a meeting on 7 February 2023.
The tribunal found that the respondent's decision maker rejected the claimant because she considered that his approach would not fit the respondent's ethos, rather than because of his age. It found no evidence that age played any part in the decision, and concluded that a hypothetical younger comparator giving similar interview answers would also have been rejected.
The tribunal held that there was no direct age discrimination and no age-related harassment. The claims were dismissed in their entirety, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The tribunal found no direct discrimination because of age under s13 Equality Act 2010 and dismissed the claim. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found no age-related harassment under s26 Equality Act 2010 and dismissed the claim. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s13 Equality Act 2010
- s26 Equality Act 2010
- s39 Equality Act 2010
- s40 Equality Act 2010
- Igen
- Hewage
- Laing
- Governing Body of JFS
- Talbot
- CLFIS (UK) Limited v Reynolds
- Khan
- Vento
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.