Arvunescu v Quick Release (Automotive) Ltd (Practice and Procedure): EAT 23 Sep 2021

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

The claimant, who was formerly employed by the respondent, brought proceedings against them for race discrimination after his employment was terminated. The proceedings were compromised by a ‘COT3’ agreement signed in March 2018. Soon afterwards, in May 2018, the claimant brought a new claim against the respondent. He alleged, among other matters, that in early 2018 he had been rejected when he applied for a post with a wholly-owned subsidiary of the respondent in Germany. He complained that this was victimisation contrary to the Equality Act 2010 for which the respondent was liable. At a preliminary hearing the Employment Tribunal (i) decided that the new claim fell within the scope of claims which were compromised by the COT3 and (ii) struck out his claim on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect that the respondent was liable for his rejection from the post.

Held (allowing the appeal on (ii) but dismissing it on (i)). The claimant’s pleaded claim was in substance complaining that the respondent had engineered his rejection from the post with the Germany company, a claim which could potentially fall within the scope of section 112 of the Equality Act 2010, which applies where one person ‘knowingly helps’ another to do an act of discrimination. The tribunal was wrong to consider that claim had no reasonable prospects of success. There was no dispute the claimant did a protected act for the purpose of section 27 of the Equality Act and the respondent knew he was applying for a post in Germany. Given the close relationship between the respondent and the Germany company, it could not be said that there was no reasonable prospect of the claimant showing that the respondent was involved in the decision to reject him and so liable under section 112.

The COT3 agreement was worded in very wide terms, and applied to any claims arising directly or indirectly out of or in connection with the claimant’s employment with the respondent. Although a claim under section 112 of the Equality Act did not necessarily require a link with employment, on the alleged facts here the complaint had a sufficient link with the claimant’s past employment with the respondent to fall within the terms of the COT3.

Judges:

Michael Ford QC, Deputy Judge of the High Court

Citations:

[2021] UKEAT 2019-000698

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.677775