Ms H McCourt v , Solicitor Peninsula Business Services Limited — 2026

The judgment concerned the respondents' application to strike out the claimant's case against the second respondent, or alternatively for a deposit order. The claimant alleged disability discrimination arising from a fire evacuation drill on 3 June 2025. At the preliminary hearing, the claimant confirmed that the only claim pursued against the second respondent was under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 in relation to the evacuation process.

The tribunal recorded that the respondents accepted the second respondent was an employee of the first respondent and that sections 110(1)(a) and (b) of the Equality Act 2010 were satisfied. The disputed issue was whether the pleaded acts or omissions of the second respondent could amount to unfavourable treatment under section 15. The tribunal noted allegations that the second respondent failed to correctly strap the claimant into the evacuation chair and failed to safely manoeuvre her down the stairs.

The tribunal was not satisfied that the allegations against the second respondent had no reasonable prospect of success. It held that the extent to which the alleged matters occurred, and whether they were the fault of the second respondent, would require evidence. It considered it arguable that unfavourable treatment could extend to the manner in which the evacuation chair was used, and refused the strike-out application.

The tribunal also refused the alternative application for a deposit order. Although it noted that the deposit-order test was less rigorous than the strike-out test, it was not satisfied that the claim against the second respondent had little reasonable prospect of success without hearing evidence. No substantive liability decision or remedy award was made.