Mr R J Bryce v Active Security Solutions Limited and 3 others — 2022

The claimant was employed by the first respondent as a licensed door supervisor and was working at the second respondent's premises when an incident occurred on 1 August 2021. The police attended and reported the incident to the third respondent, which suspended the claimant's licence. The claimant brought claims against all four respondents, including claims against the third and fourth respondents framed as discrimination arising from disability and harassment.

The third and fourth respondents applied to strike out the claims against them. The tribunal held that their relevant actions were undertaken in the exercise of public functions: regulation of the private security industry and policing functions. It found that the proper forum for such complaints, if pursued, was the county court under section 29(6) of the Equality Act, not the employment tribunal under Part 5.

The tribunal also considered the claimant's arguments under sections 111 and 112 of the Equality Act. It found that the pleaded case did not set out that the third or fourth respondents instructed, caused, induced or knowingly helped any Part 5 contravention, and that the necessary relationship or knowledge had not been shown. The claims against the third and fourth respondents were therefore struck out. The claims against the first and second respondents were not struck out and remained listed for a further preliminary hearing.