Mr G Singh v The Hearing Care Partnership Ltd: 3305551/2024 and Others
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 3305551/2024
Between
Mr G SinghClaimantThe Hearing Care Partnership LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge MJ SmithIn person for claimantMr M Green for respondentDate 17 July 2026
JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is as follows:[1]The complaint of direct race discrimination is not well-founded and is dismissed.[2]A costs order is made in the sum of £10,000 payable by the claimant to the respondent.
REASONS
[1]This is a claim of direct discrimination on the grounds of race namely that the claimant identifies as a Sikh man of Indian origin. The claimant claimed that he applied to the respondent for a job as a Hearing Aid Audiologist (HAD) and did not progress to a job in either of the applications which form the basis of this claim. He claimed that the respondent would not have treated a white person in the same way.[2]The respondent is a company providing audiology services to customers. The claimant made an application to the respondent for a job resulting in a telephone interview with Ms Sarah Forbes on 23 April 2024. The claimant was rejected by Ms Forbes who provided feedback to the relevant recruitment agency. The claimant made another application to the respondent for a job in August 2024 in which he progressed to the third stage, a clinical assessment, with Mr Tom Jones-Cox and Mr Graham Greenwell on 25 November 2024. A rejection email was sent to the claimant by Mr Jones-Cox on 27 November 2024 stating that the reason for the rejection was because the claimant had not declared that he had been dismissed from a previous role when asked. The decision to reject was taken by the hiring manager, Mr Greenwell, but communicated by Mr Jones-Cox because this is the respondent’s usual process. The procedural background[3]The respondent’s representative informed the tribunal that one of the respondent's witnesses, Mr Graham Greenwell, would not be giving oral evidence because he had sustained a brain injury and is not physically able to give evidence. The respondent’s representative stated that Mr Greenwell’s witness statement would be a matter of weight for the tribunal.
Law
[4]Section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 states:[13]Direct discrimination(1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others. 5. The case of Madarassy v Nomura International Plc [2007] ICR 867 states that the burden is on the claimant to prove the facts from which the tribunal could conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation, that the respondent had committed an unlawful act of discrimination not that the respondent could have committed such an act. 6. The case of Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi [2021] 1 WLR 3863 applied Madarassy and states that the tribunal has to consider initially what inferences could be drawn in the absence of any explanation for the treatment complained of before proceeding to the second stage of considering the respondent’s explanation. 7. Rule 74 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 74.— When a costs order or a preparation time order may or must be made (1) The Tribunal may make a costs order or a preparation time order (as appropriate) on its own initiative or on the application of a party or, in respect of a costs order under rule 73(1)(b), a witness who has attended or has been ordered to attend to give oral evidence at a hearing.(2) The Tribunal must consider making a costs order or a preparation time order where it considers that— (a) a party (or that party's representative) has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in either the bringing of the proceedings, or part of it, or the way that the proceedings, or part of it, have been conducted, (b) any claim, response or reply had no reasonable prospect of success… The evidence before us 8. The tribunal was provided with a bundle for the final hearing provided by the respondent of 323 pages. There were witness statements from the claimant, Ms Sarah Forbes, Mr Tom Jones-Cox and Mr Graham Greenwell. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, Ms Sarah Forbes and Mr Tom Jones-Cox. 9. Having heard the evidence and read such documents as were referred to in the hearing bundle we made the following findings of fact. Our findings of fact First Application 24 April 2024 Key Performance Indicators conversation 10. The claimant’s claim is based on two separate complaints. The first related to Ms Forbes’ initial telephone interview with the claimant on 23 April 2024 and her rejection of his application. In evidence the claimant was questioned by the respondent’s representative about the conduct of the interview by Ms Forbes. The claimant denied that Ms Forbes had a genuine belief that it is unusual that a candidate could not provide key performance indicator (KPI) data during an interview. The claimant stated that the only reason he could not provide details of his KPIs during his ten-minute telephone interview with Ms Forbes was because he had been undertaking locum work more recently and had not worked a full month so was unable to say when his best sales month had been. The claimant also stated that he could not provide older data on his KPIs because he did not have access to systems at former employers. The claimant suggested that Ms Forbes was aware of his KPIs from his CV and from the information he gave her during the interview. 11. Ms Forbes was consistent on this point in her oral evidence in which she stated that the claimant had not referenced any KPIs and had not answered her questions regarding his best sales month. She stated that she used a pre-determined list of questions prepared by the respondent which are asked of candidates. She stated in her written evidence that the claimant was not as engaged as she would expect and that it was unusual, in her experience, for a candidate not to be able to answer the questions asked. Ms Forbes, in her oral evidence, was consistent in that she expressed that that the claimant had not engaged with the process. The assessment conversation 12. The claimant denied that he was unhappy about being told that the respondent required applicants to take part in a clinical assessment. He denied that Ms Forbes had a genuine belief that he was resistant to the clinical assessment part of the process. The claimant stated that he was concerned about a regulator type assessment as would be conducted by his regulator, the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), but that he was otherwise willing to take part in the respondent’s assessment. This is not consistent with the claimant’s claim form in which he stated that the respondent’s clinical assessment was ‘nonsense’ (pg 22). The claimant referred to this in his witness statement and stated that he had asked questions about the ‘THCP testing way’ (para 19). In oral evidence the claimant stated that he had been happy to attend the respondent’s assessment and had queried it being a ‘regulatory assessment’. There is no coherent evidence from the claimant on this point and we found that he was not credible. 13. Ms Forbes was consistent in her evidence that the claimant had expressed resistance to engaging in the clinical assessment by the respondent. She stated this in her written and oral evidence and the tribunal found her credible on this issue. Commercial awareness[14]The claimant continually confused the terms ‘commercial awareness’ and ‘commercial experience’. The respondent required evidence of commercial awareness while the claimant relied on his commercial experience. These two terms are not the same and are assessed in different ways. The claimant’s conflation of these two terms was unhelpful and did not address the questions asked by Ms Forbes in interview in relation to his best sales month or about his commercial awareness.[15]Ms Forbes’ evidence was clear on this point and she explained that different candidates have differing levels of experience. She explained that someone with a sales background would be asked different questions to someone with an NHS background or a new graduate. The claimant accepted this premise when questioned. The tribunal found that, given the claimant’s background in sales, it was appropriate to be asked to provide more detailed responses that were based on this background including questions about his best sales month. The tribunal does not accept that this was an unreasonable question for someone with the claimant’s background as set out in his CV (pgs 186-188).[16]Ms Forbes, in her oral evidence, was clear that the claimant had not properly engaged in the interview process, had not answered her questions, had not referred to any KPIs and had expressed resistance to being assessed by the respondent as part of the recruitment process. The tribunal found her to be a credible witness. Identified comparator[17]The claimant relied on a white, female candidate as the comparator on the basis that she was an NHS candidate who had been successful in her application to the respondent. The claimant relies on her as a comparator because he suggests that she had no commercial experience and yet was given a job at the respondent.[18]There was no evidence about the questions that were asked of the comparator at her initial telephone interview. Ms Forbes stated that questions would vary depending on the candidate and that an NHS candidate with no commercial experience would not be asked questions about that. They would be asked questions about commercial awareness and KPIs relevant to their role.[19]The comparator is materially different to the claimant in that they have different career backgrounds. The claimant stated that he has a sales background and referred to his CV to demonstrate his commercial experience. The tribunal found that the comparator used by the claimant is so different from his background as not be a useful comparator. Third application August 2024[20]The third application related to the claimant being rejected after reaching the third stage of the respondent’s recruitment process which was the clinical assessment stage undertaken by the hiring manager and a member of the professional services team. Mr Greenwell was the hiring manager who made the decision to reject the claimant’s application. Mr Jones-Cox was the recruitment manager who was in communication with the claimant about his application and was the one who sent the email which set out that his application had been rejected.[21]There is no issue raised about the way in which the claimant performed throughout the process. Mr Jones-Cox stated in his written evidence that the claimant ‘interviewed well and was quite personable’ (para 15). The issue arose after the third stage of the process (the assessment). The claimant was sent a number of questions on 29 October 2024 at 14.45 to respond to in advance of the assessment (pg 231). This included the following: i) Have you been subject to any investigation by an employer, regulator, government body or agency? ii) Have you left an organisation whilst under investigation, or with a live disciplinary warning or as a result of dismissal following disciplinary action?[22]The claimant replied on 29 October 2024 at 20.42 and gave answers to the above questions. His reply in that email was ‘No’ to both questions. After the assessment on 25 November 2024 Mr Jones-Cox conducted an HCPC check which did not show any conditions on the claimant’s practice. Mr Jones-Cox also conducted an online search using the claimant’s name and ‘HCPC’ because, as he stated in his oral evidence, the HCPC does not always update their website and the respondent’s process is to conduct an online search with the name of the candidate and HCPC to see if there are any pending matters.[23]That search was conducted by Mr Jones-Cox on 27 November 2024 (pgs 240-241) and he discovered an Employment Tribunal judgment with the claimant also listed as the claimant in that case. Mr Jones-Cox reviewed the judgment and determined that the tribunal had found that the claimant had been fairly dismissed by his employer by reason of conduct. Mr Jones-Cox in his oral evidence stated that he had a conversation with Mr Greenwell in which he shared the information he had found about the claimant’s prior dismissal. Mr Jones-Cox stated that the reason given in the rejection email dated 29 November 2024 at 16.34 (pg 249) was the reason that Mr Greenwell had given for the rejection as the hiring manager: ‘As part of our routine recruitment process we undertake certain checks prior to an offer of employment. Through this, something has come to light. We have found that you were dismissed from previous employment in relation to a matter of questionable honesty and integrity. In addition, you had replied to the related question during the selection process by confirming you had not been dismissed. As a result, the company feels that the essential requirement of honesty and integrity has not been met and is unfortunately unable to proceed with your application any further.’[24]The claimant’s response, at the time, was sent on 27 November 2024 at 18.26 in which he said ‘Finally, for the record and for future reference in further legal proceedings, I have no idea what you are talking about. Nor do I know what dismissal, if any, you are referring to.’ When questioned during the hearing the claimant stated that he had simply forgotten about his dismissal because the allegations were false and he did not view the process of making a claim or appearing in an Employment Tribunal as a ‘big deal’. The claimant says it was a simple error on his part and that he had forgotten about the dismissal and the tribunal proceedings.[25]The tribunal found that it is entirely lacking in credibility that someone would forget that they had been dismissed for conduct, especially as the claimant stated that it was his first such claim. The tribunal found it entirely lacking in credibility that someone would forget that they had brought tribunal proceedings if they had been unsuccessful in those proceedings. The tribunal found it entirely lacking in credibility that if someone had their memory jogged by a reference to tribunal proceedings arising out of a dismissal that they would still be unable to remember. The tribunal found that Mr Jones-Cox was a credible witness and that the claimant was not credible on any of the above points.[26]In oral evidence the claimant challenged Mr Jones-Cox’s assertions about the claimant’s honesty and that he would be a risk to vulnerable patients. Mr JonesCox’s evidence was clear on this point and he referred to the job description for the role of Hearing Aid Audiologist (HAD) which gave ‘Honesty and integrity’ as being essential requirements for the role (pg 244). Mr Jones-Cox said that the failure to declare the dismissal had a direct impact on the respondent’s view of the claimant’s honesty and integrity such that he presented a risk to vulnerable patients. The claimant put to Mr Jones-Cox that standards of ethics are essential to a HAD role because of the vulnerability of patients and Mr Jones-Cox agreed. The tribunal found that the HAD role requires honesty and integrity because of the nature of the work and the nature of the customers and patients who interact with its employees. The tribunal found that the respondent had grounds to believe that the claimant had not met the criteria of honesty and integrity and the rejection was appropriate in the circumstances. Hypothetical comparator[27]The claimant relies on a hypothetical comparator for this application namely a white, non-Sikh person. The claimant asserted in oral evidence and when questioning Mr Jones-Cox that if the claimant had been white and non-Sikh that Mr Jones-Cox would have sought further clarification before rejecting him. Mr Jones-Cox’s evidence was clear that he would not have gone back to any candidate for clarification in a similar situation. The tribunal found that in a situation where a candidate had given a false answer to a direct question about dismissal it would be appropriate for that employer to reject them without asking for an explanation. In particular, the tribunal noted that upon receipt of the rejection email, the claimant did not seek to clarify the situation but instead continued to deny knowledge of the dismissal. The tribunal found that this was not credible as the claimant would have remembered the dismissal well enough to respond to the initial question and, in any event, once he received the rejection email, would have had his memory jogged such that he could have provided an explanation in his reply. General credibility[28]The claimant accepted during questioning that he had no direct evidence to support his allegations of direct race discrimination. During questioning he was asked to show any indirect or other evidence to support his allegation. He was unable to show this to the tribunal. The claimant made serious allegations in his claim form (pgs 100-101) and in his witness statement (paras 119-121) against the respondent. These included allegations that the respondent wanted the claimant to pay ‘homage’ to it and that it ‘feels that because I am a none white person I am inferior. And because of my race and ethnicity the Respondent believes that I must be governed and regulated by them – the Respondent (pg 100 para 14).’ He also stated the respondent ‘believes because I am not white I am not entitled to be governed and regulated by the HCPC. The Respondent believes only white ‘pure’ HAD’s are entitled to be regulated by the HCPC.’ (pgs 100-101 para 20).[29]The claimant stated that he no longer stands by these claims but the respondent only became aware of this during questioning in the hearing. The respondent had prepared its claim on the previous basis set out by the claimant in his claim form and witness statement. It is concerning that the claimant brought such serious allegations initially without any evidence to substantiate them. We found that the claimant was not a credible witness because he was evasive in his answers. The tribunal found that Ms Forbes and Mr Jones-Cox were credible witnesses and were persuaded by their evidence. The tribunal did not believe the claimant’s answers and preferred the evidence of the respondent’s witnesses. Cumulative acts[30]With regards to the claim the claimant asked the tribunal to consider the cumulative nature of the acts by the respondent and to infer that they were to do with his race, namely that he is a non-white, Sikh man, in the absence of any explanation for the treatment. The tribunal found that there was no direct or indirect evidence presented by the claimant of the acts being due to race and as such, even taken cumulatively, they were not to do with race.[31]In any event, we went on to consider the evidence of the respondent’s witnesses. Mr Greenwell’s witness statement formed the entirety of his evidence as he was unable to give oral evidence due to his medical condition. The tribunal were unable to assess his credibility in person but assessed his witness statement in light of the evidence given by the other respondent witnesses. The tribunal found that his evidence was credible because it was supported by evidence from the other respondent’s witnesses. Ms Forbes and Mr Jones-Cox were both credible witnesses and the explanation put forward by the respondent for its treatment of the claimant was sensible in the circumstances. Conclusions Fail to progress an application for employment by rejecting it on 23 April 2024
Conclusions
[32]The tribunal found that the respondent failed to progress an application for employment by rejecting it on 23 April 2024 for the reasons given above. Fail to progress a third application for employment by rejecting it on 27 November 2024[33]The tribunal found that the respondent failed to progress a third application for employment by rejecting it on 27 November 2024 for the reasons given above. Was that less favourable treatment?[34]The tribunal found that the claimant was not treated worse than the white, female NHS candidate comparator in relation to the 23 April 2024 rejection because their circumstances were materially different for the reasons given above.[35]The tribunal found that the claimant was not treated worse than a hypothetical white comparator in relation to the 27 November 2024 rejection because the failure to declare a dismissal was central to the rejection where standards of honesty and integrity form an essential part of the job description as set out in the reasons above. Was it because of race?[36]The tribunal found that the rejection of 23 April 2024 was not because of race but was because of Ms Forbes’ encounter with the claimant, his failure to properly engage with the recruitment process, his failure to provide details of KPIs and his resistance to the respondent’s assessment process as set out in the reasons above.[37]The tribunal found that the rejection of 27 November 2024 was not because of race but was because of the claimant’s false answers to direct questions asked about investigation and, in particular, dismissal as set out in the reasons above. Costs Our findings of fact[38]As part of the costs application the tribunal received a copy of a costs warning letter sent by the respondent to the claimant dated 10 October 2025, a schedule of costs from the respondent and a bundle of evidence about the claimant’s means. The tribunal heard oral evidence from the claimant. The tribunal took into consideration the documentary and oral evidence as part of its deliberations.[39]The respondent’s representative made an application for costs on two grounds. In support of the application, the respondent’s representative provided a copy of a costs warning letter sent to the claimant dated 10 October 2025 and a copy of a costs schedule. The costs warning letter referred to the two grounds set out below and specified weaknesses in the claimant’s claim. These weaknesses were similar to the issues identified by the tribunal in our liability judgment as set out above. The respondent’s costs totalled £27,804.99 excluding VAT from the period they instructed their current solicitors in October 2025. The respondent’s representative raised a number of issues namely the findings of credibility made by the tribunal, the lack of evidence (direct or indirect) on which to base a finding of race discrimination and the unreasonable action of the claimant in bringing the claim. The respondent’s representative stated that the claim also had no reasonable prospects of success for those reasons.[40]The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and he was questioned during the hearing. The tribunal received a bundle from the claimant showing evidence of his means. The claimant relied on his previous evidence about the substance of the claim. He stated that he had thought that a deposit order needed to be in place before a costs order would be considered. The claimant stated, in oral evidence, that had a deposit order been made against him, he would have taken it seriously and not have continued with the claim. He stated that he had genuinely thought that he had a claim and that he believed there was evidence available from which the tribunal could draw inferences of race discrimination. The claimant relied on the fact that he is a litigant in person and that he did not understand the implications of the 10 October 2025 letter.[41]The tribunal found that the claimant had been aware from at least 10 October 2025 of the significant weaknesses in his claim particularly the lack of evidence, either direct or indirect, that the allegations were to do with race. The findings in relation to credibility and fact as set above in the liability section of this judgment apply to this application.[42]The claimant’s evidence was that he has debts and is moving to a lower paid role next month. However, he also stated that he intends to top up his income with locum work which pays a rate of about £300 per day. The claimant’s partner lives with him and helps with expenses and other bills while also giving the claimant money every month. The claimant owns his own home and has an outstanding mortgage. He has received money from his brother to assist with bills. Conclusions 74(2)(a) the claimant has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in either the bringing of the proceedings, or part of it, or the way that the proceedings, or part of it, have been conducted[43]The claimant acted unreasonably in bringing the proceedings and in his conduct of the proceedings for the reasons set out in the judgment on liability and costs. The letter of 10 October 2025 was explicit in stating the weaknesses in the claimant’s claim and the judgment of the tribunal addresses issues similar to the weaknesses highlighted in the letter. By pursuing the claim in relation to the two job applications in April and August 2024 and making serious allegations (which he resiled from only at the hearing) the claimant acted unreasonably in his bringing and conduct of the proceedings. The tribunal found that this ground was made out. 74(2)(b) the claim had no reasonable prospect of success[44]For the reasons set out above it was clear at the very latest by 10 October 2025 that the claim in relation to the two job applications in April and August 2024 had no reasonable prospects of success. The tribunal found that this ground was made out. Whether the tribunal should exercise its discretion to award costs[45]The tribunal found that the grounds for a costs award were made out and considered the surrounding circumstances. We took into account that the claimant is a litigant in person, that he was given a costs warning in the letter dated 10 October 2025 and that he sought some advice about the serious consequences should a costs application be made and succeed. The claimant said in oral evidence that he had contacted the Citizen’s Advice Bureau (CAB). The tribunal found that he ought to have known that a costs order was a possibility at the final hearing in light of the letter. The tribunal decided to make a costs order for these reasons and for those reasons set out above in the liability and costs sections of this judgment. The tribunal made an assessment of the claimant’s means[46]Having heard evidence of the claimant’s means the tribunal decided that a costs order of £10,000 was a reasonable amount having also considered the time and expense put into responding to the claim by the respondent. This sum is reasonable because the sum sought by the respondent was £27,804.99 and the costs schedule reflects the necessary work of the respondent’s representatives in responding to the claim. Approved by: