Case 2302909/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Hayward v Magnetic Shields Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302909/2022
- Decision date
- 12 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khalil
- Venue
- London South via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Hayward
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Khalil sitting alone. The claimant, Mr T Hayward, remained employed by Magnetic Shields Ltd as a Furnace Loader. The tribunal heard evidence about his pay history: he had been on £9.25 from January 2021, was raised to £9.50 in April 2022, and had previously been paid more than the applicable national minimum wage. The tribunal also considered wage information for other Furnace department employees, showing that before April 2022 some were on £9.25 and others on £8.91, with the lower-paid group generally younger and with less service. Mr Woolger accepted that after the April 2022 increase there was an advert for the same role showing a range of £9.50 to £10.50, and said there had been an old pay policy but that pay was now being brought into line; no pay policy document was produced.
On direct age discrimination, the tribunal held that the reason for the claimant's pay change was the new higher NMW and/or the respondent's same-pay policy, not age. The tribunal said that point was common ground, and that the direct age discrimination claim therefore had no reasonable prospect of success. It was struck out under Rule 37.
On indirect age discrimination, the tribunal said the claim was less clear because it was not well pleaded, the alleged PCP had not been clearly articulated, and group disadvantage had not been properly pleaded by reference to age groups. However, the wage data and Mr Woolger's evidence about a change in pay policy meant there was at least an arguable case of indirect age discriminatory impact. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had said in the 17 July 2023 meeting that age was relevant, including because newer entrants were likely to be younger and he had 22 years' service. In those circumstances, the tribunal refused to strike out the indirect claim and also refused a deposit order, relying on the high threshold for strike-out in discrimination cases and citing Anyanwu and Community Law Clinic Solicitors v Methuen.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination. The tribunal held that the April 2022 pay increase was caused by the new higher NMW and/or the respondent's prevailing same-pay policy, not the claimant's age, and struck out the claim under Rule 37 as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Age discrimination | Indirect age discrimination. The respondent's application to strike out, and alternative application for a Rule 39 deposit order, were refused. The tribunal said the pleading was unclear and the PCP was not well articulated, but there was at least an arguable case of indirect age discriminatory impact and further factual investigation was needed. | Other | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 37 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 39 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Anyanwu and another v South Bank Students' Union and another 2001 ICR 391
- Community Law Clinic Solicitors v Methuen 2012 EWCA Civ 571 CA
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.