Mr M Davies v Melin Homes Ltd: 3320662/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 September 2023 |
| Date | 15 September 2023 |
| Citation | 3320662/2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 14 December 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Age Discrimination |
Case Number: 3320662/ 2021
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant:
Mr M Davies
Respondent:
Melin Homes Ltd
Heard at:
By video (Cardiff)
On: 26 October 2022
Before:
Employment Judge R Harfield (sitting alone)
Representation:
Claimant:
Mr Davies represented himself
Respondent:
Mr Jones (Counsel)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
(Strike out & deposit order)
It is the decision of the Employment Judge sitting alone that:
1. The “ordinary” unfair dismissal complaint is dismissed upon withdrawal;
2. The complaints of direct sex discrimination do not have a reasonable
prospect of success and are struck out;
3. The complaint of indirect sex discrimination does not have a reasonable
prospect of success and is struck out;
4. The complaints of direct age discrimination in relation to:
a. The decision to dismiss;
b. Not giving the claimant warning/details of the allegations in
advance of the dismissal meeting;
c. Not adopting an alternative to dismissal
have little reasonable prospect of success. The claimant will be ordered
to pay a deposit on condition of continuing with his direct age
discrimination complaints, as set out in the separate deposit order;
Case Number: 3320662/ 2021
2
5. The complaints of harassment related to sex and/or age summarised at identified
as (b), (f), (g), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), (p) and (q) are dismissed upon
withdrawal;
6. The complaints of harassment related to sex of identified as (a), (c), (d), (e), (h)
do not have a reasonable prospect of success and are struck out;
7. The complaints of harassment related to age of (a), (c), (d), (e), (h) have little
reasonable prospect of success. The claimant will be ordered to pay a deposit
on condition with these complaints, as set out in the separate deposit order;
8. The complaint of victimisation is dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant or
alternatively struck out on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of
success;
9. The complaint of trade union detriment has little reasonable prospect of success
and the claimant will be ordered to pay a deposit as set out in the separate
deposit order;
10. The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages is dismissed upon
withdrawal;
11. The complaint of inducing discrimination under sections 111 and 112 Equality Act
is dismissed upon withdrawal;
12. The complaint of breach of contract under section 86 Employment Rights Act
1996 has no reasonable prospect of success and is struck out;
13. The complaint of breach of contract (notice pay) relating to operation of the
discretion to pay the claimant in lieu of notice has little reasonable prospect of
success and the claimant will be ordered to pay a deposit as set out in the
separate deposit order.
14. The case will be listed for a further case management hearing once the claimant
has decided whether to pay some or all of the deposit order. For the avoidance of
doubt, all of the claims the claimant is pursuing that have not been struck out are
subject to deposit order terms.
REASONS
1. Introduction
1.1 The claimant was employed by the respondent as a Property Maintenance
Manager from 29 July 2019 to 21 June 2021. On 20 September 2021 he
presented his ET1 claim form, indicating he was bringing complaints of unfair
dismissal, sex and age discrimination (direct, indirect, harassment and
victimisation), a deduction from wages claim in relation to flexi time, breach of
contract, and detriment on the grounds related to trade union membership or
activities. The respondent filed grounds of resistance resisting the complaints.
To continue reading
Request your trial