Case 2405583/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms CJ Spickett v Manchester City Council — 2020
- Case reference
- 2405583/2020
- Decision date
- 1 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms CJ Spickett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant alleged she had been unlawfully excluded from membership of her employer's pension scheme because she worked part-time, and that this exclusion was indirectly discriminatory against women.
A notice under Rule 37 dated 27 August 2020 invited the claimant to explain why the complaint should not be struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. The stated basis was that she was either eligible to join the Teachers' Pension Scheme throughout the claim period or, if not eligible for part of that period, had failed to join when later eligible, suggesting she would not have joined earlier and therefore had suffered no detriment.
The claimant did not provide reasons in response and did not request a hearing to object to strike out. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim in its entirety under Rule 37 as having no reasonable prospects of success.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part-time worker regulations | The judgment states that the complaint of exclusion from the employer's pension scheme because the claimant was a part-time worker was struck out under Rule 37 as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The reasons state that the alleged exclusion was said to be indirectly discriminatory against women. The judgment struck out the claim in its entirety under Rule 37. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.