Mr W Matthaus v Huntswood CTC Ltd and Others: 2409527/2023
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Judgment Date | 21 March 2025 |
| Citation | 2409527/2023 |
| Subject Matter | Sex Discrimination |
RESERVED JUDGMENT
Case No. 2409527/2023
1
Claimant:
Mr W Matthaus
Respondents:
1. Huntswood CTC Limited
2. Mr K Stone
3. Lloyds Bank PLC
Heard at:
Manchester (hybrid)
On: 12 and 13 September 2024
and in chambers on 1 October
2024.
Before:
Employment Judge McDonald
REPRESENTATION:
Claimant: In person
1st and 2nd Respondents: Miss B Balmelli (Counsel)
3rd Respondent: Mr A Weiss (Counsel)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows:
1. The claimant withdrew his complaint that he was unfairly dismissed by the First
or Third Respondent. That unfair dismissal complaint is dismissed on
withdrawal.
2. On the issue of whether the claimant was an employee of the First and/or Third
Respondent for the purposes of s.83(2) of the Equality Act 2010:
2.1. He was an employee of the First Respondent for those purposes
2.2. He was not an employee of the Third Respondent for those purposes.
3. The claimant’s complaints of direct discrimination in breach of s.13 of the
Equality Act 2010 were not presented within the applicable time limit. It is not
just and equitable to extend the time limit.
4. The claimant’s complaint that he was directly discriminated against because of
sex in breach of under ss.13 and 39(2) Equality Act 2010 by being paid a lower
day rate than female colleagues for the same work fails. By 70(1), s.39(2) has
RESERVED JUDGMENT
Case No. 2409527/2023
2
no effect where a sex equality clause applies or would apply but for section 69
or Part 2 of schedule 7 of the Equality Act 2010.
5. The claimant’s claims against all 3 respondents are dismissed for the reasons
given above.
.
REASONS
Introduction
1. On 12 and 13 September 2024, I conducted a public preliminary hearing. It
had been listed by Employment Judge McCarthy following a case management
preliminary hearing on 21 March 2024.
2. By a claim form filed on 25 September 2023 the claimant brought complaints
of unfair dismissal and of sex, race and religion or belief discrimination against the 3
respondents.
3. The claimant’s case is that he was an employee or worker of the first and/or
third respondent between 24 November 2014 and 14 September 2015. He accepted
he resigned in September 2015 but says he was forced to do so, i.e. that he was
constructively dismissed.
4. The first respondent contracts to provide its clients with consultancy and
outsourcing services. It recruits and supplies consultants to work on projects with
high volume customer demand, e.g. processing PPI complaints. Its case is that
those consultants are engaged as contractors on a self-employed basis rather than
as employees or workers. It accepts that it engaged the claimant on that self-
employed basis. In this judgment I refer to the first respondent as “Huntswood”.
5. The second respondent is employed by the first respondent as a Principal
Resourcing Consultant. In this judgment I refer to him as “Mr Stone”. It is not
suggested that he was the claimant’s employer, but the claimant does allege that he
directly discriminated against the claimant.
6. The third respondent was a client of Huntswood under a Framework
Agreement for consultancy and other services. It is accepted that the claimant was
engaged on projects under that agreement. The third respondent denies that there
was any contract between it and the claimant. It rejects his claim that he was its
employee or a worker for it. In this judgment I refer to it as “Lloyds”.
7. The claimant says he was directly discriminated against because he is male;
because of his religion (he is a Muslim) and/or because of his race (he is British of
South Asian heritage). In this judgment I have used the term “BAME staff” to refer to
non-white staff because that is the term used by the claimant in his claim form and in
his evidence.
RESERVED JUDGMENT
Case No. 2409527/2023
3
8. The claimant alleges there were 3 acts of discrimination. In summary, he says
he was:
8.1. paid less than his comparators for doing the same work in 2014-2015. The
claimant was initially engaged as a Case Handler at £145 per day but then
“demoted” to a Data Gatherer/Admin role at £95 per day from 24 November
2014. He says others doing that Admin role were paid £145 (“the Pay
allegation”);
8.2. effectively “blacklisted” by not being offered any further work or projects by
Huntswood from 14 September 2015 until 2020 when he did undertake
another project for it (“the Blacklisting allegation”); and
8.3. required to work his 30 days’ notice in 2015 when Helena Brooks was not
(“the Notice allegation”).
9. The Notice allegation was not included in the claim form. The claimant applied
at this hearing to add it by way of amendment.
10. The Pay allegation names 4 actual comparators. Helena Brooks, Mr Blything,
Chris Mathers and Heather Tremarco. During the hearing I raised the point that a
complaint of not being paid the same for equal work as the 2 female comparators
because of sex properly fell within the equality of terms provisions at ss.64-71 of the
Equality Act 2010 rather than as a direct sex discrimination complaint. S.70(1)
provides that S.39(2), prohibiting discrimination in terms of employment, has no
effect in relation to a term that is modified or included by virtue of a sex equality
clause, or that would be so modified were it not for a successful ‘material factor’
defence under S.69 of the Act. The claimant applied to amend his claim to “re-label”
his complaint about being paid less because of his sex as a complaint under the
Equality of Terms provisions (“the Equal Pay complaint”).
11. The hearing was a hybrid hearing. The claimant represented himself.
Huntswood and Mr Stone were represented by Miss Balmelli of counsel. Lloyds was
represented by Mr Weiss of counsel.
12. I heard oral evidence from the claimant and from his witnesses, Farhan Patel
(“Mr Patel”) and Richard Blything (“Mr Blything”). I heard evidence from Mr Stone on
behalf of himself and Huntwsood. I heard evidence from Rhys Jenkins (“Mr Jenkins”)
for Lloyds. There was a written witness statement for each. The claimant and Mr
Stone gave evidence in person. Mr Patel, Mr Blything and Mr Jenkins gave evidence
remotely by CVP.
13. There was a preliminary hearing bundle of 332 pages (“the Bundle”).
References in this judgment to page numbers are to pages in the Bundle.
14. During the hearing, reference was made to other Tribunal cases brought by
the claimant. Copies of the judgments in those cases were provided and I have
taken them into account where relevant in reaching my decision. They were:
14.1. A reserved judgment on liability dated 14 October 2021 in case
no.161710/2018 brought by the claimant against (1) MBNA Ltd and (2)
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
