Mr Mosley-Redman v Department for Work and Pensions: 3200119/2024
[1]It is the judgment of the Tribunal that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the claims of unlawful deduction of wages advanced by the Claimant as they relate to averred payments that he would have received had he remained in post and therefore there is no reasonable prospect of success in respect of this aspect of the claim.[2]It is the judgment of this Tribunal that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over claims for pregnancy and/or maternity brought by a male claimant in accordance with section 18 of the Equality Act.[3]The Claimant’s oral application to amend his claim is refused in respect of disability discrimination and what he termed the grievance claim which was understood also to be part of the disability discrimination and part of the maternity/ associative discrimination claim. Though the Claimant stated that this had been mentioned to EJ Townley at the Case Management Hearing on the 03 March 2025. I could see no evidence that this to have been the case as it was not contained within the case management order.[4]It was also not mentioned in the further and better particulars and/or his ET1. The Tribunal considered that this was not an amendment but adding an entirely new claim which remained inherently vague. It was unclear what conduct was Case Number: 3200119/2024 2 of 2 being alleged in respect of the disability claim and the Tribunal considered that it was not in in the interests of justice to allow the amendment at this late stage, particularly as it had not been mentioned at the previous preliminary hearing despite comprehensive discussions with the judge. It was considered that this would be a substantial amendment and an entirely new claim which would have time limit considerations. Given the Claimant had been given an opportunity to provide further and better particulars and also had had a preliminary hearing there was no reasonable reason provided for the claims not being brought or mentioned earlier. Further, the inherent vagueness that remained in the claim could not persuade the Tribunal on the reasonable prospects of success nor detract from the injustice/hardship that would occur for the Respondent.[5]The Claimant’s application to amend his claim on the basis of discrimination of his sex as male and his taking paternity leave was also refused. I considered that it was not in in the interests of justice to allow the amendment at this late stage, particularly as it had not been mentioned at the previous preliminary hearing. The Claimant raised this application in response to my asking questions and therefore the Claimant accepted that it was only fair for the Tribunal to conclude that he was raising the matter today and had not mentioned it before.[6]Further, the Tribunal is obliged to consider the merits of the application of any amendment and the Tribunal was not persuaded on the documents before it or what it heard. The Claimant was in a temporary role and there had been a permanent recruitment for his replacement in November 2023 around the time he commenced his paternity leave. The Claimant mentioned in questions from the Tribunal that there were 15 others who had remained in temporary employment and therefore the differentiating factor was that he had gone on paternity leave. These details were provided orally to the Tribunal and again remained vague and had not been provided to the Tribunal or the Respondent prior to the hearing. The Claimant also accepted that he was never given assurances that he would be kept within his role for a particular period of time. The Tribunal concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of success for his claim and considered that the balance of hardship/injustice fell on the Respondent if an amendment was allowed due to manner in which the applications were made and the inherent vagueness of the details provided which continued to expand despite previous attempts to clarify the issues and grounds and finally the Tribunal not being satisfied that the there was a reasonable prospect of success. Accordingly the claims are struck out. Employment Judge Iman Dated: 08 August 2025