Mr Paul Dunn v Ministry of Defence — 2024

The claimant was formerly employed by the respondent as an Infantry Soldier and left under the Premature Voluntary Release provisions in 2001. In 2023 he asked the respondent to amend his mode of exit to medical discharge. The respondent refused, relying on a policy imposing a 12-month time limit for retrospective medical discharge and PIC Code appeals. The claimant brought a disability discrimination claim alleging failure to make reasonable adjustments by varying the time limit or amending his mode of exit.

The Tribunal considered first whether it had jurisdiction. It held that, on the face of the legislation, paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 9 to the Equality Act 2010 excludes Part 5 Equality Act claims relating to disability in respect of service in the armed forces, and that section 108 extended that position to former service relationships where the alleged discrimination arose out of and was closely connected to the former relationship.

The claimant argued that the legislation should be read compatibly with Articles 8 and 14 ECHR, relying on T v Ministry of Defence. The Tribunal declined to read additional words into section 108, finding that the armed forces derogation for age and disability was a fundamental feature of the legislation and that the proposed reading would go against the grain of the statutory scheme. The Tribunal therefore struck out the disability discrimination complaint and did not decide the remaining strike-out, deposit order, disability status, or case management issues.