Mr J Harwood v Liquid Capital Markets Ltd — 2022

This was a preliminary hearing judgment concerning strike out. The claimant, Mr J Harwood, had pleaded unfair dismissal and age discrimination arising from the termination of his employment after more than 15 years with Liquid Capital Markets Ltd. The respondent said his London Senior Operations Analyst role was redundant, with some of the work moved to Sydney, and the tribunal considered whether the claims had no reasonable prospects of success within Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. The tribunal also referred to Cox v Adecco [2021] ICR 1307 when setting out the approach to strike out.

On the age discrimination claim, the claimant relied on the fact that a Head of Regulatory Reporting and Operations role was not offered to him and that a younger new starter was appointed. The tribunal held that the Head of Regulatory Reporting and Operations role was a more senior position and was not a suitable alternative role for redundancy purposes. It found that the claimant had not provided argument or evidence showing that he had the necessary skills and experience, that the respondent knew or should have known that he was suitable, or that the failure to offer or interview him was because of age. The tribunal treated the 'new blood' point as speculative.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted the claimant's position that part of his work had moved to Sydney and that his role no longer existed in London. It concluded that the definition of redundancy was met because, for business reasons, the respondent relocated the role abroad, and that there was no evidence of an ulterior or discriminatory reason for doing so. The tribunal therefore struck out both claims as having no reasonable prospects of success.