It is unfortunately the case that some people out there get it into their heads that a way of making easy money is to bring multiple claims against a series of employers on spurious grounds related to job applications. Such people reason on the basis that most employers would rather pay off such claims rather than taking them through to the Tribunal.
Back in 2008 a certain Mr Berry brought an age discrimination claim against one of our clients, a small recruitment consultancy. At the time we were keen to investigate whether this person was a vexatious litigant and pursue him accordingly. However in the event our client opted to settle the claim for a modest £150 to save the hassle and cost of defending it in the Tribunal.
However things seem to have caught up with Mr Berry and in Berry v Recruitment Revolution last week, the EAT has reiterated that claimants who bring discrimination claims in respect of allegedly discriminatory job advertisements in which they have no genuine interest, purely in the hope of being paid to settle their claims, are liable to face an order for costs. Whilst Recruitment Revolution may have obtained a costs order against Mr
It may well be a different matter if the person had a genuine interest in applying for the job, but only failed to apply because of (say) a discriminatory age or unreasonable minimum experience requirement. However if it appears to you that the applicant now bringing a tribunal claim never could have applied for the role, or had no intention of doing so, you may well smell a rat and want to investigate further whether claimant is indeed a frivolous or vexatious claimant.
RECULVER SOLICITORS
No comments:
Post a Comment