Case 3303463/2022 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2023

Case reference: 3303463/2022
Decision date: 7 July 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge R Lewis Appearances
Venue: Watford

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary strike-out hearing before Employment Judge R Lewis. The claimant, aged 45, alleged that disputes with younger colleagues at Welwyn Garden City between November 2021 and January 2022 were age-related and relied on nine pleaded events. The tribunal applied the Rule 37 strike-out test, noted the caution required in discrimination cases, and referred to Shamoon on detriment and Richmond Pharmaceuticals v Dhaliwal on harassment.

For items (a) to (c), the tribunal held that a remark that the claimant had "a lot of experience", the response "I am young" in conversations about children, and a comment that another colleague was "more agile" did not have a reasonable prospect of establishing age-related detriment or harassment. For items (d) to (f), which concerned the Christmas outing, the tribunal found that the dispute was about venue choice, that all colleagues were asked to suggest options, and that being disagreed with was not itself a detriment.

For items (g) to (i), which concerned events on 10 and 11 January 2022, the tribunal said the transcript of the covert recording showed a workplace dispute about use of the room and later a complaint about food smell, with no reference to age or age-related language. It struck out the direct discrimination and harassment claims based on those incidents, finding that the claimant's case amounted to bare assertion that the conflict must have been age-related.

The tribunal did not strike out the victimisation claims based on items (g) to (i), holding that it was not safe on a strike-out application to conclude that the alleged perpetrators lacked knowledge of the 8 January grievance. It also said that the claim of age discrimination by constructive dismissal was not struck out and would proceed, noting that because the claimant had under two years' service the claim was under the Equality Act 2010 rather than the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that any reliance at the final hearing would be confined to items (g) to (i).

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Age discrimination	Claims under s.13 EqA 2010 based on items (a) to (i) were struck out at the preliminary hearing.	Struck out	Age	—
Harassment	Alternative harassment claims under s.26 EqA 2010 based on items (a) to (i) were struck out.	Struck out	Age	—
Victimisation	Claims under s.27 EqA 2010 based on items (g) to (i) were not struck out and were to proceed to hearing.	Other	—	—
Constructive dismissal	The claim of age discrimination by constructive dismissal was not struck out and was to proceed under the Equality Act 2010.	Other	Age	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.