Mr A Thompson v Quiver Delivery Ltd — 2026

Mr A Thompson's sole complaint of indirect race discrimination under s.19 Equality Act 2010 was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because it had no reasonable prospect of success. Although Quiver Delivery Ltd's response had previously been rejected, the Tribunal permitted its director, Mr M Barrie, to make oral submissions on the strike-out application after considering the balance of prejudice and Limoine v Sharma.

Mr Thompson applied online for a courier role. Quiver Delivery Ltd asked applicants to provide a self-introductory video to assess their communication with clients and customers. Mr Thompson declined to provide one, citing discomfort about sharing information or his likeness, and the respondent replied that the role was probably not for him.

The Tribunal accepted that the respondent's standard practice of requesting an introductory video was a provision, criterion or practice for the purposes of s.19. Applying the burden-of-proof analysis described in Dziedziak v Future Electronics Ltd, Mr Thompson first had to establish the PCP, group disadvantage and individual disadvantage before the respondent was required to justify the practice.

Mr Thompson asserted that requiring a video exposed race, accent and appearance early in recruitment and could disproportionately disadvantage Black African and Afro-Caribbean applicants. The Tribunal considered his claim form, witness statement, submissions, a screenshot of a Google search containing an AI summary, and a further email, but found that these materials provided no concrete or reliable evidence of group disadvantage. It noted the absence of statistical or expert evidence, found that his personal evidence did not support the asserted group disadvantage, and concluded that the alleged disadvantage was not sufficiently obvious for judicial notice to be taken without proof.

Taking Mr Thompson's case at its highest in accordance with Malik v Birmingham City Council, the Tribunal found that he had no reasonable prospect of establishing group disadvantage and struck out the complaint, which disposed of the whole claim. It did not determine justification because that would require evidence from the respondent, and it regarded Mr Thompson's standing to bring an Equality Act claim as an applicant for the courier role as at least arguable. No remedy was awarded or addressed.