EAT (Practice and Procedure: Striking-Out/Dismissal) UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES
AGE DISCRIMINATION
The ET struck out the Claimant’s claims of unauthorised deductions and age discrimination after receiving written submissions from the parties. Specifically, it found the Respondent’s only contractual obligation was to provide an insured long-term disability scheme, the benefits to be provided by the insurer not the Respondent. The scheme in place operated until age 60 (the retirement age when the Claimant entered into benefit in 2003; prior to any legal protection against age discrimination). The Respondent had complied with its obligation; the cessation of benefits when the Claimant turned 60 was consistent with the rules of the insured scheme. This did not amount to direct age discrimination on the part of the Respondent; any such claim would have needed to be brought against the insurer.
On the Claimant’s appeal: held, dismissing the appeal:
It was not said the ET erred in considering this on the basis of written submissions; this was a dispute turning on the interpretation of the documentation. As the Claimant had taken no point on the Respondent’s evidence, the ET was entitled to consider there was no factual dispute.
The ET correctly concluded the Respondent’s obligation was limited to providing insurance. Even on the documentation relied on by the Claimant, the ET had not erred in construing ‘retirement’ to mean age 60. In reaching that conclusion, it did not err in failing to have regard to documentation that the Claimant had not herself put into evidence. In any event, that documentation did not make good a case of contractual variation or establish an entitlement under a new insurance scheme. The ET equally reached a correct conclusion on the direct age discrimination case, predicated on the claim that the Respondent had been directly liable to make payments of long term disability benefit (which the ET rejected). There was no additional claim under section 39(2) of the Equality Act 2010 but, even if there had been, it would have failed because the obligation was not that of the Respondent but that of the insurer (see Hall v Xerox UK Ltd UKEAT/0061/14).
Eady QC HHJ
[2016] UKEAT 0279 – 15 – 0803
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560992
