Case 3303248/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr J Munro (Solicitor) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3303248/2022
- Decision date
- 12 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Ms A Brosnan, Ms M Harris
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, aged 59 at the relevant time, applied for a permanent teaching role with the respondent after working as an agency teacher. He was shortlisted but was not selected to proceed after a microteach session and interview. The two candidates who proceeded were aged 26 and 36, and the younger candidate was appointed.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's age discrimination claims. In the summary included in the reasons, it noted problems with the respondent's process, including an initially incorrect explanation, lack of records other than Ms Atkins' notes, and a failure by a senior HR member to investigate the claimant's complaint. It nevertheless accepted Ms Atkins' notes and oral evidence that the other candidates performed better and that age was not a material consideration.
The reasons provided in the supplied text focus on the preparation time order. The tribunal found that the respondent's failure of disclosure constituted unreasonable conduct of the proceedings, though not a deliberate attempt to withhold or deceive, and ordered the respondent to pay preparation time of £1,075.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's claims of age discrimination fail and are dismissed. The supplied PDF text is truncated and says the written reasons are limited to the preparation time order, so the merits reasons for dismissal are only available as a bare summary. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,075
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Science Research Council vs Nasse 1979 IRLR 465
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.