Jacob Meagher v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge & Ors

A statutory right to sue individual employees for discrimination under sections 109 and 110 of the Equality Act 2010 remains subject to proportionate case management. In an exceptional case, claims against individuals may be struck out as an abuse of process where the pleaded case is institutional, the employer is liable for the relevant decisions, and the individuals add substantial cost and complexity without substantive benefit.

The statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments cannot be imported directly into a contractual or tortious duty of care. But an independent duty may arise from separate facts, such as recommendations made by an institutional disability service. A pleading based on failure to implement those recommendations is legally distinct and should not be struck out merely because the same facts may also support a statutory claim.

The claimant, a PhD student, appealed against case-management decisions made by HHJ Duddridge on an application to strike out his amended claim. His pleaded claims included disability discrimination and victimisation against the University and five individual employees, together with contractual and tortious claims concerning the conduct of his viva examination and recommended adjustments.

The judge below struck out the claims against the individuals as an abuse of process under CPR rule 3.4(b), applying the principle that a claim may be struck out where continuation is disproportionate to the benefit obtained. He also struck out contractual and tortious particulars alleging failure to implement adjustments recommended by the University’s Disability Resource Centre. The central issues were whether those decisions involved legal or evaluative error.

1. Claims against the individuals. The appeal was dismissed on this issue. The claimant had a statutory right to bring claims under section 110 of the Equality Act 2010, either instead of or alongside claims against the University under section 109. That right was not an absolute bar to ordinary case-management powers.
2. Because the claims were brought in proceedings governed by the CPR, the court could apply CPR rule 3.4(b) and the Jameel principle. In an appropriate and rare case, a legally coherent claim may be abusive where the cost, complexity and use of court resources are wholly disproportionate to the claimant’s substantive benefit. The court may consider the reality of related claims against multiple defendants. AB v John Wyeth supported the proposition that claims against some alleged tortfeasors may be stopped while claims against others continue.
3. The judge below was entitled to find that the pleaded case concerned institutional decisions of University committees, rather than distinct personal discriminatory acts by the individuals. The University would be liable for any discriminatory decisions, would meet any damages, and was the proper target for any injunction. The individuals’ participation as separate defendants therefore added material cost and complexity without substantive benefit. The discretion was finely balanced but was not plainly wrong.
4. Contractual and tortious particulars. The appeal was allowed on this issue. The principle in Smeaton v Equifax prevents a statutory duty from being treated as the direct source or ingredient of a common-law duty of care or its contractual equivalent. However, the pleaded case was different. It relied on separate contractual and tortious duties and on recommendations made by the University’s Disability Resource Centre. Failure reasonably to implement those recommendations could, in theory, breach those duties whether or not it also breached the statutory duty. The particulars were therefore reinstated.

The appeal was dismissed in relation to the individual defendants and allowed in relation to paragraphs 69(3) and 70(3) of the amended particulars of claim.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): [2025] EWHC 30 (KB). Mr Justice Constable dismissed the appeal concerning the individual defendants but allowed the appeal concerning the contractual and tortious particulars.
• High Court, case-management decision: HHJ Duddridge struck out the claims against the individual defendants as an abuse of process under CPR rule 3.4(b), and struck out paragraphs 69(3) and 70(3) of the amended particulars of claim.