Claimant v The Society Incorporated by the Lloyds Act 1971 by the name of Lloyds and 30 others — 2019

This was an open preliminary hearing on 11 September 2019, not a merits judgment. The claimant’s ET1 pleaded age discrimination and victimisation, and the tribunal later allowed an amendment to add an indirect age discrimination claim. No compensation or substantive liability findings were made at this stage.

The tribunal dismissed under Rule 52 the claims against respondents 8, 22, 24, 25, 28 and 30, noting that they had either no relevant involvement or only a tenuous connection with the matters complained of. It also struck out the claims against respondents 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 23 and 26 under Rule 37(1)(a) and (b). In doing so, the tribunal accepted Lloyds’ concession that it would accept vicarious liability for the Council, the pension trustees and the recommendation panel, and held that keeping those respondents in the case was unnecessary and vexatious or unreasonable.

The tribunal refused to strike out the claims against Lloyds and the named individuals Jeffrey Barrat, John Neil, Michael Green, Alistair Evans, John Wingrove, Julie Drew, Anita Walters and Bruce Carnegie Brown. It considered those respondents to have played a more central role, including on the Council and recommendation panel, and concluded that allowing the claimant to continue against them was not unreasonable. It also granted permission to amend to plead indirect discrimination, on the basis that the claim might have merit, there was still time before the February 2020 trial, and the claimant would pay £500 toward the respondents’ costs occasioned by the amendment.