Mr D Murtagh v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham — 2021

This was an open preliminary hearing about amendment, time limits, deposit orders and strike-out. The tribunal found that the claimant had identified race and sex discrimination claims in his original ET1, and that later documents were further particulars rather than new claims. To the extent permission to amend was needed, it was granted, and time was extended on a just and equitable basis for the surviving 16 June 2020 direct discrimination claim.

The tribunal struck out the direct sex discrimination allegation about the interview date during paternity leave, finding no reasonable prospect of success because the same date applied to all interested candidates, there was nothing to show it was chosen to exclude the claimant, and he attended the interview. It also struck out the direct discrimination allegation about failure to provide feedback insofar as it was alleged to be because of sex or gender, and struck out the indirect discrimination claim because the alleged PCP was invalid and had no reasonable prospect of showing group disadvantage.

The tribunal refused to strike out or order a deposit for the direct race and/or sex discrimination claim about the 16 June 2020 interim appointments. It noted that the respondent accepted three black women were appointed without consulting the claimant, a white man said to be in a similar position, and that the claimant challenged the explanation for the appointments. The tribunal also refused to strike out or order a deposit for the victimisation claim, finding it was a matter for evidence and was brought within time as a continuing state of affairs.