Mr D Matovu v 2 Temple Gardens Chambers and 1 other — 2019

Mr D Matovu brought consolidated claims of direct and indirect racial discrimination, race-related harassment and victimisation against 2 Temple Gardens Chambers, Mr Neil Moody QC and Mr Lee Tyler. The complaints arose from disputes about Chambers contributions on direct access work, a home-made invoice, the handling of a Board meeting in December 2016, a speaking opportunity in June 2017, interim clerking arrangements after Mr Tyler's discrimination complaint, and later grievance steps. The tribunal held that some of the numbered complaints were out of time and that some allegations tied to the mediation of 21 December 2017 could not be determined because the evidence was protected by without prejudice privilege.

On the direct discrimination issues, the tribunal rejected the complaints about the January and April 2016 exchanges over arrears and direct access contributions, the December 2016 request for information, and the June 2017 seminar matter. It found no actionable detriment in the conduct complained of, accepted the Respondents' explanations as rational and unremarkable, and held that there was no basis to infer race as a material influence on the acts or omissions relied on. It also noted that the grievance about the seminar slot was controlled by Ms Wolstenholme, not Mr Tyler.

The indirect discrimination complaint about charging Chambers contributions on direct access work failed under s.19. The tribunal held that Mr Matovu had not shown the policy placed black barristers at a particular disadvantage, noting that he was the only black member of Chambers and that no statistical or other broader evidential case was made. It found his comparator analysis to be legally misconceived.

The race-related harassment and victimisation complaints were dismissed. The tribunal held that the complained-of conduct did not satisfy the statutory threshold for harassment under s.26, and that the alleged detriments in the recording dispute, the Azib investigation, the Board's acceptance of her report, the interim clerking arrangements, and the handling of Mr Tyler's grievance either were not detriments or were taken for ordinary operational reasons rather than because protected acts had been done. Applying the burden of proof provisions was unnecessary, but the tribunal said that, if it had been necessary, the Respondents would still have succeeded. The proceedings were dismissed and no award was made.