Mr J Sheehy v Lymington & Pennington Town Council — 2025

The claimant, aged 29, applied for the role of Town Clerk/CEO with the respondent town council. The tribunal found that the respondent applied a provision, criterion or practice in its essential selection criteria which placed younger applicants at a particular disadvantage, and that the claimant's application was rejected on 1 March 2024 as a result. The tribunal held that this amounted to indirect age discrimination contrary to s.19 Equality Act 2010 and that the respondent had not shown the criteria to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim at that point.

On 6 March 2024 the respondent agreed to reconsider the claimant's application. The tribunal found that from that date onwards there was no indirect age discrimination, because the reason the claimant was not shortlisted for interview after reconsideration was not the essential selection criteria but that his application form was not as strong as those of other candidates. The claim of direct age discrimination was dismissed.

On remedy, the tribunal found that the discrimination did not cause the claimant's loss of earnings or pension, since the case was not one of loss of chance and the claimant did not get the job for reasons unrelated to the discriminatory criteria. Applying Prison Service v Johnson and the Vento bands as updated by the Presidential Guidance, and treating the discrimination as brief and unintentional, the tribunal awarded £2,500 for injury to feelings, plus £292 interest at 8% over 533 days, giving a total of £2,792.