Claimant v Parity Professionals Limited — 2018

Pink Lotus Ltd, represented by Ms Docherty, alleged that Parity Professionals Ltd terminated a consultancy contract after Ms Docherty disclosed her pregnancy. The original claim had been framed under sections 13, 18, 55 and 112 Equality Act 2010, but at the hearing Ms Docherty stated that only sections 13 and 112 were being pursued. The tribunal treated that statement as a clear and unequivocal withdrawal of the section 18 and section 55 complaints.

Once section 55 was withdrawn, the tribunal held there was no longer any Part 5 (work) contravention to anchor a section 13 complaint, and it therefore had no jurisdiction to determine the direct discrimination claim. The tribunal noted that section 13 is not a free-standing route and must be tied to a Part 5 contravention.

On the section 112 complaint, the tribunal considered the meaning of "knowingly help" with reference to Allaway v Reilly, Hallam v Avey, Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union and South Bank University, the EHRC Code, and EAD Solicitors LLP and others v Mr Abrams. It concluded that the pleaded allegation amounted only to a failure to attempt validation of the client's reasons for termination, which was not active assistance. It also relied on the separate decision in Ms Docherty's claim against the Scottish Ministers, where there was found to be no contract to do the work personally, and concluded that there had been no act of discrimination for the respondent to knowingly aid. The section 112 claim was therefore struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. No remedy was awarded, and the respondent indicated it intended to seek expenses.