Lorenzo Ramos v Lady Coco Limited T/A Shamela's Fresh Hot and Cold Food

A person who has no genuine interest in an advertised job cannot show that a discriminatory advertisement subjected them to less favourable treatment or disadvantage. The statutory protection of recruitment arrangements does not provide compensation to a person who did not wish or intend to seek the employment.

An appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal must raise an arguable question of law. It cannot be used to reargue permissible factual findings on credibility or to challenge a discretionary preparation time order without identifying legal error.

The claimant brought a sex discrimination claim under the Equality Act 2010 after seeing the respondent's advertisement for female takeaway staff in Glasgow. He did not contact the respondent or apply for the role. The Glasgow Employment Tribunal found that he had no genuine intention of applying and had brought the claim solely to obtain money.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim and later made a preparation time order of £697 in the respondent's favour, finding the proceedings vexatious, unreasonable and without reasonable prospects of success. The claimant's proposed appeals challenged both decisions. The central issue was whether either proposed appeal disclosed an arguable question of law.

1. The proposed appeals were dismissed as totally without merit. They disclosed no arguable question of law capable of engaging the EAT's jurisdiction under section 21 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996.

2. The Employment Tribunal had made permissible findings that the claimant had no genuine interest in the advertised job and no intention of applying for it. Its assessment of his credibility was a matter for the Tribunal. His lack of connections with Scotland, failure to investigate the role or contact the respondent, and prior similar claims were relevant considerations.

3. The Tribunal correctly applied section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. A person with no genuine interest in the advertised employment has suffered no less favourable treatment from its discriminatory terms. Evidence that others might have been deterred could not establish that this claimant had been deterred. The authorities relied on by the Tribunal gave general guidance in applying the statutory provisions and were binding on it.

4. The decision to permit the respondent's director to participate remotely from China was within the Tribunal's case-management discretion. It required neither the claimant's consent nor a test of absolute necessity. The claimant identified no resulting prejudice.

5. The preparation time order was also unimpeachable. The Tribunal permissibly found that the claimant had acted vexatiously and unreasonably and had pursued a claim he knew had no reasonable prospects of success. It considered the parties' conduct and the claimant's means, and awarded £697 for 17 hours of preparation time.

6. The EAT held that the claimant's attempts to reopen factual findings and discretionary decisions were an abuse of the appellate process. His conduct before both tribunals was vexatious. The ruling was referred to the Registrar for consideration of whether his litigation conduct might warrant consideration by the Lord Advocate.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: proposed appeals dismissed under rule 3(10) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993: [2023] EAT 99.
• Glasgow Employment Tribunal: dismissed the sex discrimination claim on 14 September 2022, with judgment sent on 16 September 2022, and made a £697 preparation time order for the respondent, with judgment sent on 21 September 2022.