Mr D Godfrey v Prospect Holdings (Reading) Ltd — 2022

This was a preliminary hearing on the respondent’s applications to strike out parts of the claim and, alternatively, to order a deposit. The tribunal allowed the claimant permission to amend the claim form so that it included the complaints set out in the further particulars of claim dated 30 June 2021. It then held that the claims had more than little reasonable prospect of success, so the strike-out and deposit applications failed.

The tribunal identified the substantive complaints in issue as direct sex discrimination and part-time worker discrimination under the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. It accepted that some of the factual background was not disputed, but held that the core facts were disputed, including why the relevant events happened. The claimant’s case was summarised as being that, had he been a woman, he would have been allowed to work the Senior Helpdesk Advisor role and/or the MCC Legal Advisor role on a part-time basis, whereas as a man he was required to undertake those roles full-time if at all.

The tribunal said that those were core factual issues for trial and that it was not in a position to decide them on the strike-out/deposit hearing. It also rejected the respondent’s argument that the claimant had done no more than assert discrimination, finding that the pleaded case did more than merely assert discrimination and set out a sufficiently cogent basis on which inferences might be drawn at trial. The tribunal likewise treated the comparator issues and the respondent’s points about the claimant’s willingness to work full-time as matters for trial rather than summary disposal.

The result was that the claims were allowed to proceed, but the tribunal did not decide the merits of either claim. The judgment contains no award of compensation or other remedy.