Mr J Humphrey v Oracle Asset Finance Limited t/a Oracle Care Finance — 2023

This was a preliminary hearing at Sheffield before Employment Judge Brain on 26 January 2024. The respondent applied to strike out the claims, or alternatively for deposit orders. The tribunal refused strike out under Rule 37(1)(a), but concluded that the live unfair dismissal and direct sex discrimination claims each had little reasonable prospect of success and ordered a deposit of £50 per claim, payable by 1 March 2024. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant had withdrawn a separate section 57A Employment Rights Act 1996 complaint, which was dismissed upon withdrawal.

The unfair dismissal complaint was that the claimant was dismissed because he had taken paternity leave. The tribunal noted that he had worked for the respondent as a business controller from 3 April 2023 to 19 May 2023, had taken three weeks of paternity leave between 24 April and 14 May 2023, returned on 15 May 2023, and was dismissed four days later. It accepted, for the purposes of the application, that the claimant had some documentary material suggesting he had sought extra training and had been performing reasonably well on 24 April 2023. However, the tribunal considered the respondent’s position that the dismissal was for poor attitude and poor performance, together with the undisputed fact that the respondent had allowed extended discretionary paternity leave and had otherwise been supportive, meant the claim faced a significant obstacle. The tribunal held that factual disputes could not properly be resolved on the papers, but that the claim still had little reasonable prospect of success.

The sex discrimination claim was brought as direct discrimination on the ground of sex under section 13 Equality Act 2010. The claimant identified Chloe Lingwood and Ingrid Smith as female comparators. The tribunal held that Ingrid Smith was not an appropriate statutory comparator because she held a senior role with different duties, and that Chloe Lingwood was not a statutory comparator either because her circumstances were not the same or similar, though her evidence could still be of evidential value. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had pointed to some matters capable of amounting to the additional something more needed under Madarassy, including the alleged refusal of extra training and the alleged criticism by his trainer on return to work. Even so, it said the claim still had little reasonable prospect of success, in particular because of the respondent’s favourable treatment of the claimant in allowing discretionary paternity leave and the possibility that this indicated a family-friendly approach rather than sex discrimination.