Mr Gursajan Singh v The Hearing Care Partnership Limited — 2026

Mr Gursajan Singh claimed that The Hearing Care Partnership Limited directly discriminated against him because he is a Sikh man of Indian origin. The claim concerned its decisions not to progress two applications for work as a Hearing Aid Audiologist. The tribunal unanimously dismissed the complaint.

On the first application, the tribunal accepted Sarah Forbes's evidence that Mr Singh did not properly engage with the telephone interview, did not answer questions about key performance indicators and resisted the clinical assessment process. It found that the white female NHS candidate relied on as a comparator had a materially different career background and was not a useful comparator. The rejection on 23 April 2024 was not because of race.

Mr Singh reached the clinical assessment stage of the later application. Before the assessment, he answered "No" when asked whether he had left an organisation following dismissal after disciplinary action. A later search found an Employment Tribunal judgment recording that he had been fairly dismissed for conduct. The tribunal rejected his evidence that he had forgotten the dismissal and earlier proceedings. It found that honesty and integrity were essential requirements of the role and that the respondent had grounds to believe he had not met those criteria. A hypothetical white, non-Sikh candidate who had given a false answer to the same direct question would not have been treated more favourably, and the rejection on 27 November 2024 was not because of race.

The tribunal found no direct or indirect evidence from which it could infer that either decision was due to race, whether the acts were considered separately or cumulatively. Applying section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 and the burden-of-proof approach in Madarassy v Nomura International Plc and Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi, it accepted the respondent's explanations for both decisions.

The respondent sought £27,804.99 in costs. Under rule 74 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, the tribunal found that Mr Singh had acted unreasonably in bringing and conducting the proceedings and that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success, at the latest from the costs warning dated 10 October 2025. After considering his means, his status as a litigant in person and the work reflected in the respondent's costs schedule, it ordered him to pay £10,000 towards the respondent's costs. This was a costs order in favour of the respondent, not a remedy awarded to the claimant.