Mr M Lazer v London Fire Commissioner & Anr. OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2020

At a remote open preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Truscott QC sitting alone, the tribunal removed the second respondent under Rule 34, refused the claimant's application to amend, and allowed the respondent to amend its grounds of resistance. The tribunal also noted that it took no account of covert recordings referred to by the claimant.

The age discrimination claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a). The claimant said he was perceived as 23, but the tribunal found that the pleaded references to being treated "like a child", a "fatherly side", a "grumpy child", and later "young man" did not, on the material before it, show less favourable treatment because of age or perceived age. It concluded that the claim as pleaded lacked evidential support and had no reasonable prospect of success.

The harassment and victimisation allegations were also struck out. On harassment, the tribunal found that the contemporaneous email evidence did not support the claimant's account of unwanted conduct, and it did not accept that the conduct alleged was linked to age in the way required by section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. On victimisation, the tribunal held that moving the claimant to a new line manager was not a detriment. The reasons also addressed the protected disclosure allegations relied on in the amendment application, concluding that there was no sufficient prima facie evidence of a qualifying disclosure about health and safety and no reasonable prospect of success.