Mr A Price v DL Insurance Services Limited — 2018

The claimant applied for a Motor Product Analyst role and was interviewed, but was not selected for a second interview. He claimed indirect age discrimination, alleging that the respondent had applied a provision, criterion or practice requiring lack of experience, not too much experience, or not being overqualified, which disadvantaged older candidates.

The tribunal found that the respondent used a structured interview scheme and selected for further interview the candidates who achieved sufficiently high marks. The claimant scored highly for technical competence, but lower than other candidates on other competencies. The tribunal accepted that comments were made to the effect that his technical skills were beyond what was required for the role, but found that this did not mean the respondent required someone with lesser skills.

The tribunal rejected the alleged PCP, which was sufficient to dispose of the claim. It also stated that, if the issue had arisen, it would not have found evidence that people in the claimant's age group were more likely than younger candidates to have the relevant SAS expertise, and it declined to address justification because the point was too hypothetical on its findings.