Mr R Champayne v Luxfer Gas Cylinders Ltd — 2022

Mr R Champayne applied for an HR Advisor role with Luxfer Gas Cylinders Ltd on 18 May 2021 and was rejected without an interview. He alleged direct race discrimination, saying he is black and Jamaican and relying on Ms Croft as an actual comparator or, if necessary, a hypothetical comparator. At the preliminary hearing he withdrew the proposed indirect discrimination amendment, so the tribunal was concerned only with the direct race discrimination complaint and the respondent's applications under rules 37 and 39.

The tribunal applied section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 and the authorities it cited on strike out and direct discrimination, including Wong v Igen, Balls, Cox, Mechkarov, Laing, Shamoon, Madarassy and Veolia. It refused to strike out the claim because, taking the claimant's case at its highest, it could not be said to have no reasonable prospect of success. The judge accepted that if there was no actual comparator, a hypothetical comparator would need to be considered. However, the tribunal found serious weaknesses in the case, including that Ms Croft's CV showed longer HR assignments than the claimant's and that Ms Slater, who was offered the role, appeared to have different qualifications and experience.

On the deposit application, the tribunal held that the claim had little reasonable prospect of success and ordered the claimant to pay a deposit of £20 if he wished to continue pursuing the direct discrimination complaint. In assessing ability to pay, the tribunal accepted evidence that he was employed on £22,000, received universal credit, had significant rent and child maintenance commitments, and had no savings or disposable income.