Thread by @JasonBraier

1/ Arvunescu v Quick Release: An interesting consideration of s.112 EqA (aiding a contravention) & the width of COT3 wording, as well as an application of Cox v Adecco to find a s.112 claim albeit not expressly pleaded.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62029aca…
#ukemplaw

2/ A worked for QR for a month before being dismissed. He brought a race discrim claim but that was ultimately compromised under a COT3 in 2018 with the following widely drafted term as to what was being compromised:

3/ Also in early 2018, A applied for a job with a wholly-owned subsidiary of QR. He was rejected. Subsequent to the COT3 being signed, A brought a victimisation claim against QR in re that rejection. A PH was held to consider whether the claim should be struck out.

4/ The EJ struck it out on 2 bases: (1) the merits; (2) due to the COT3.
On 1, the EJ held there no evidence of QR involvement in the rejection decision, but anyway liability would be with the rejecting subsidiary, not QR.
A appealed against both bases of the decision.

5/ The EAT held the EJ erred in striking out on the merits. The EJ didn't consider EqA s.112, concerned with helping another to contravene the EqA. Whilst the ET1 hadn't set out a s.112 claim, a Cox v Adecco analysis would have sniffed it out.

6/ Given documents before the EJ showed QR knew A was applying for the role & given A's evidence re the close links between the companies & that discussions had taken place between them about A, as well as lack of reasons for A's rejection, the merit strike out was in error.

7/ It's the nature of a s.112 claim that it's unlikely A would have direct evidence of victimisation. However, there was some evidence supportive of A's position & it could transpire on exploration at trial that s.112 aiding was made out. The high hurdle to strike out wasn't met.

8/ However, the COT3 compromised the claim . The victimisation claim related to a rejection predating the signing of the COT3. Whilst the COT3 clause was imperfectly drafted to meet the EAT's high syntactical standards, it was intended to have a wide application.

9/ The EAT found the clause embraced discrimination under s.112 EqA given the width of the wording, & the allegation here involved an indirect link with A's employment given the relationship b/w the employment & the protected act. Thus the claim fell within the COT3 wording.