Mr D Hughes v Allen Lane Limited — 2024

Mr D Hughes brought an ET1 on 7 April 2023 alleging direct age discrimination in relation to his unsuccessful application for a MHRA recruitment role. The respondent said it had advertised the vacancy on behalf of MHRA, received 31 applications, and that MHRA carried out the shortlisting and interview process. The claimant had stated his age band as 55-59 on the Diversity Monitoring Form, although he was in fact 69; one of the three shortlisted candidates was also in the 55-59 band.

The claimant alleged that Stephanie Robinson, on behalf of the respondent, had overlooked his CV and that a General Manager, Ed Stroud, had failed to resubmit his application after agreeing to do so. The tribunal rejected the claimant’s application to strike out the response, finding that the respondent’s position had consistently been that MHRA carried out the shortlisting and that Stephanie Robinson’s role was limited to scoring/commentary and later feedback, which did not evidence involvement in the selection panel.

On the respondent’s strike out application, the tribunal held that the age discrimination claim had no reasonable prospects of success. It found that the claimant’s own age band on the form, combined with the shortlisting of a candidate in the same band, did not support an inference of age discrimination. The tribunal also found that the claimant’s case repeatedly focused on Stephanie Robinson’s alleged lack of competence and expertise rather than age, that his theory that she had googled his age was speculative, and that he had not explained how Ed Stroud’s alleged failure to resubmit the application was said to be discriminatory.

The tribunal also struck the claim out under Rule 37(1)(b) and (c). It recorded that, despite warnings at the earlier case management hearing, the claimant continued to send aggressive, abusive, threatening and insulting correspondence to the respondent’s solicitor and to the tribunal, including personal attacks on Stephanie Robinson and allegations of dishonesty and perjury. The tribunal concluded that a fair trial was not possible, that the conduct was scandalous, vexatious and unreasonable, and that strike out was proportionate. No monetary remedy was awarded because the claim was struck out.