Mr Richard Powell, counsel Mr Keir Hirst, solicitor For the v Respondent — 2025

Mr Whitehouse, a volunteer member of the Royal Naval Reserve, had originally brought unlawful deduction from wages, regulation 5 less favourable treatment, and regulation 7(2) detriment claims under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. By the time of this preliminary hearing, the unlawful deduction and regulation 5 claims had already been withdrawn, leaving only the regulation 7(2) claims based on alleged detriments said to follow from his service complaints and other steps taken to assert a regulation 5 right.

The respondent applied to strike out the remaining claims on the basis that regulation 13(2) excluded the claimant's regulation 7(2) rights whenever the underlying complaint related to service under section 22 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996, and that the claimant's reliance on regulation 7(3)(a)(iv), (v) and (vi) could not succeed if the regulation 5 right itself was excluded. The tribunal rejected that approach. It held that the wording of regulation 13(2) was not decisive and, read in context and in light of the purpose of the PTWR, did not exclude the separate protection against detriment in regulation 7(2) in the circumstances assumed for the preliminary hearing.

The tribunal also held that the acts relied on could still fall within regulation 7(3)(a)(iv), (v) and (vi) even if the underlying regulation 5 complaint was ultimately not well-founded because regulation 13(2) applied to the unpaid activities. It treated the domestic-law interpretation as sufficient to resolve the two main issues in the claimant's favour, so the section 3 HRA 1998 arguments did not need to be decided. The internal MOD and DTI documents in the bundle were held not to be admissible aids to construction, while the published DTI consultation paper was admissible but of limited assistance.

Because the claimant succeeded on the preliminary interpretation issues, the respondent's strike-out application was refused and no deposit order was made. The judgment did not decide the merits of the regulation 7(2) claims or make findings on the alleged detriments themselves, which were left to the final hearing.