Case 3307721/2024 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr A R Ramani (2) Mr G Talbert v Addison Lee Ltd RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 3307721/2024
- Decision date
- 26 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr A R Ramani (2) Mr G Talbert
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the First Claimant's victimisation complaint about allegedly being required in April 2020 to work at least one night shift every weekend. It found there was a straightforward and well documented explanation in the First Claimant's later email, which described the 2020 shift arrangements as arising from cover needed during the Coronavirus pandemic and as arrangements put forward by the Claimants themselves.
The Tribunal decided it was proportionate to strike out that complaint because it had no reasonable prospect of success. It declined to strike out the remainder of the claims, including later allegations about delay in addressing a request to revert to a previous shift pattern, because there was not a similarly straightforward and well documented explanation allowing the Tribunal to conclude those complaints had no realistic chance.
The Tribunal also declined to strike out the equal pay complaints. It recorded concessions by the Respondent about like work and higher pay for named female comparators in specified years, noted that claimants are entitled to choose their comparators for equal pay purposes, and stated that the Respondent had not advanced a further explanation such as a material factor defence.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The First Claimant's complaint that he was victimised when allegedly required in April 2020 to work at least one night shift every weekend was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | The Tribunal declined to strike out the remainder of the Claimants' claims, including allegations about delay in 2022 and 2023 in addressing the First Claimant's request to revert to his previous shift pattern; those claims were not finally determined. | Other | — | — |
| Equal pay | The Tribunal declined to strike out the equal pay complaints. The Respondent conceded some like-work and pay disparity points, but the equal pay complaints were not finally determined. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- no reasonable prospect of success
- Tayside Public Transport Company Limited (t/a Travel Dundee) v Reilly
- North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Ezsias
- Anyanwu v South Banks Student Union
- Ahir v British Airways Plc
- Reading Borough Council v James
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.