Mr C Mallon v Corriculo Ltd — 2025

At a preliminary hearing in Reading by CVP on 12 March 2025, Employment Judge McCooey considered the respondent's strike-out and deposit-order applications in Mr C Mallon's disability discrimination claim against Corriculo Ltd, a recruitment agency. The respondent accepted that Mr Mallon had autism, ADHD and dyspraxia. The judge recorded that the relevant events were contained in the email trail in the bundle and that there were no other material factual disputes about what happened.

The tribunal focused on the Inside Sales Manager application of 14 June 2024. Mr Mallon was rejected after the respondent said his CV showed no recent sales experience and therefore did not meet the client's minimum requirements. When he challenged the rejection, Mr Dalby and then Mr Palmer replied that the CV had been read by a human, that the application was not being progressed because of lack of relevant experience, and that Mr Mallon could take time, speak by phone, and clarify his experience; the role remained open. The judge found there was no factual basis for the allegations that the respondent had been dismissive or had prioritised convenience over adjustments, and that the claimant did not take up the offers to explain his suitability.

The tribunal also rejected the indirect discrimination and reasonable-adjustments complaints. It held that the alleged PCPs did not show any inflexible timelines, that the job descriptions relied on were not shown to be complex in the way pleaded, and that the request for an oral application process did not assist where Mr Mallon had not shown that he met the minimum experience required for the roles. On the harassment complaint, the judge found that the earlier email exchanges were generic replies sent after unsuccessful applications and that the June 2024 correspondence was addressed by Mr Palmer; the emails therefore did not amount to unwanted conduct.

Applying Rule 38(1)(a), with the cautionary authorities on striking out discrimination claims, the tribunal concluded that each complaint had no reasonable prospect of success and struck the claim out in its entirety. It did not decide the separate genuine job applicant point under Keane v Investigo because the strike-out conclusion made that unnecessary. No remedy was awarded.