Community Law Clinic Solicitors Ltd & Ors v Methuen

At interlocutory stage, a discrimination claim should be struck out only where it is bound to fail. If the claim raises an arguable legal issue whose resolution depends on disputed evidence and factual findings, it should proceed to a hearing. In age discrimination claims, the relationship between age, experience, qualification and salary may require particular examination. A cost-based explanation for replacing an older, more qualified employee with a younger employee cannot be assessed without examining those matters. The court therefore declined to resolve the issue on the pleadings or limited material before it.

Mr S Methuen brought race, sex and age discrimination claims after his employment was terminated before he had sufficient service to claim unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal declined to strike out the claims. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, with Bean J sitting alone, struck out the race and sex claims but declined to strike out the age discrimination claim.

The appellants appealed against the refusal to strike out the age claim. They argued that the dismissal was caused by the respondent’s higher qualifications and salary, not his age. The central issue was whether the relationship between age, experience, qualification and salary could be resolved without fuller factual findings.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. Pill LJ gave the leading judgment. Hallett LJ agreed, although she shared reservations about the respondent’s prospects of success. Patten LJ agreed with both judgments.

1. At the strike-out stage, the court must approach the claim on its pleaded basis. A claim should not be struck out where it raises an arguable legal point, crosses the threshold of possibility, and is not bound to fail.
2. The age discrimination issue was potentially important and could not sensibly be determined without fuller examination of the evidence. The relevant matters included the relationship between age, experience and qualification, and the factors influencing the decision to dismiss.
3. The appellants’ contention that cost was unrelated to age had not been sufficiently examined in the proceedings below. The pleadings and evidence left room for further factual inquiry, including whether the respondent had been replaced by a substantially younger and less expensive employee.
4. The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and Another v Homer, [2010] EWCA Civil 419, was distinguishable. It concerned inability, said to be a consequence of age, to obtain a degree required for access to a higher pay band. The present case concerned alleged over-qualification and the interaction between qualification, experience, salary and age.
5. The court did not determine whether the age discrimination claim would ultimately succeed. It held only that the claim should not be struck out before the necessary factual findings were made. The formal order was: appeal dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal against the refusal to strike out the age discrimination claim was dismissed.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal: On 8 April 2011, Bean J sitting alone struck out the race and sex discrimination claims but declined to strike out the age discrimination claim. No citation for that decision was stated in the judgment.
3. Employment Tribunal: Employment Judge Hodgson declined to strike out the race, sex and age discrimination claims on 14 October 2010.