Case 2212310/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jacob Meagher v Judicial Appointments Commission and 3 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 2212310/2023
- Decision date
- 28 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Smart Sitting
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Mr Jacob Meagher
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered the respondents' joint application to strike out the claim. The claimant alleged disability-related failures to make reasonable adjustments in judicial appointment selection exercises, indirect discrimination, and victimisation arising from alleged failures to engage with or make adjustments after protected acts.
The Tribunal recorded that the claimant accepted he was not eligible to accept the judicial roles he had applied for or intended to apply for at the relevant time. It concluded that the claims had no reasonable prospects of success because the alleged adjustments could not have improved his position and there could be no relevant detriment where he could not have obtained the role in any event.
The Tribunal also accepted, in the alternative, the respondents' policy argument that extending applicant protection to a person not eligible to apply for, be offered, or commence the role would undermine the intended meaning of applicant. The claims were struck out in their entirety under rule 37(1)(a).
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments were struck out under rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claims of indirect discrimination were struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. The judgment text available identifies the case as disability discrimination and describes PCPs said to disadvantage people with the claimant's combination of disabilities. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation claim, based on alleged detriments of failing to discuss or make reasonable adjustments because of protected acts, was struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 37(1)(a)
- Paulley
- Keane
- Cox
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.