Mr D Foster v The Monastery Manchester Limited — 2024

The claimant alleged that he was disabled by migraines caused by prolonged computer use and that the respondent should have allowed him to continue a job application by telephone rather than through an online process. He said he had applied on 18 February 2024 for a Wedding and Special Events Coordinator role and had been ignored, and he later pursued the matter by email and then by ACAS and tribunal claim. The tribunal proceeded on the claimant’s factual assertions for the purposes of the strike-out application, but did not make findings of fact beyond the documents before it.

The tribunal held that there was no live vacancy when the claimant applied in February 2024 because the role had been filled in May 2022. It also found no evidence that the respondent required applicants to complete a substantial online application form; the advertisement itself only invited applications by email. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the respondent was not making arrangements for deciding to whom to offer employment within section 39 of the Equality Act 2010, so the case fell outside the statutory framework relied on by the claimant. Even if there had been a live vacancy, the claimant could not show a PCP of the kind alleged.

The tribunal also found the claim vexatious. It noted that after the first email on 18 February 2024 the claimant did not follow up by telephone or further enquiry, but instead sent a letter-before-claim style email on 2 April 2024 demanding compensation within a short deadline, followed by a near-identical email on 4 April. The claim form itself was very brief, and the tribunal had to require further information before the response was due. Applying rule 37(1)(a), and referring to Mechkarov, Balls and Attorney General v Barker, the tribunal struck out the claim in its entirety as vexatious and with no reasonable prospect of success.

After the strike-out decision, the tribunal made a costs order under rule 76(1)(a) and (b). It accepted that the respondent had incurred recoverable costs in defending the proceedings, but also took account of the claimant’s means, including his stated weekly income and expenditure and his evidence about a property interest in Africa. The respondent had sought £13,227.50 plus VAT, but the tribunal concluded that £5,000 was the appropriate award in light of ability to pay.