Ms S Khan v The Law Society of England and Wales — 2021

Ms S Khan brought claims of victimisation said to follow complaints of discrimination on grounds of race and/or religion or belief, together with claims of detriment for protected disclosures. The preliminary hearing proceeded in her absence after repeated applications to postpone the remote hearing were refused. The tribunal noted that she had previously participated in remote hearings, and where there was a material conflict in the evidence it preferred the respondent's account because the claimant was not available for cross-examination.

The tribunal found that the claimant's Civil Justice Committee role, and later her chairship from 1 September 2017, were voluntary roles within the Law Society's committee structure. Members received expenses and an annual incidental expenses allowance, but not remuneration. It contrasted that position with the claimant's separately paid role on the SRA's Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Committee, where she was paid per meeting under a non-executive member agreement. Applying the approach in Grayson and the other authorities cited, the tribunal held that there was no contract of employment and no contract personally to do work, so she was not in employment or a contract worker for sections 39 to 41 of the Equality Act 2010.

On the office-holder issue, the tribunal held that references to a "term of office" did not make the claimant an office holder where the statutory requirement of entitlement to remuneration was not met. It also held that the respondent was not acting as a qualifications body under section 53 Equality Act 2010 because the complaints related only to committee roles and not to any relevant qualification needed to remain a solicitor. On the ERA claims, the tribunal held that section 230(3) and section 43K still required a contract and that the claimant's circumstances did not fit any of the extended categories. The tribunal said the claim form had potentially been presented in time and could be treated as 3 February 2020 after the ACAS certificate issue, but because all claims failed jurisdictionally they were struck out; it did not determine whether earlier allegations formed conduct extending over a period.