The claimant brought proceedings against the respondent for race discrimination after his employment was terminated. In March 2018 those proceedings were compromised by a “COT3” agreement but in May 2018, the claimant brought a new claim against the respondent, alleging that in early 2018 he had been rejected when he applied for a post with a wholly-owned subsidiary of the respondent and that this was victimisation contrary to the Equality Act 2010. At a preliminary hearing the Employment Tribunal decided that the new claim fell within the scope of claims compromised by the COT3 and struck out his claim as there was no reasonable prospect that the respondent was liable for rejecting the claimant.

Michael Ford QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, allowed the appeal against the strike out but agreed with the ET that the new claim was compromised. The tribunal was wrong to consider that claim had no reasonable prospects of success as it could not be said that there was no reasonable prospect of the claimant showing that the respondent was involved in the decision to reject him. However while in theory a claim under section 112 of the Equality Act did not necessarily require a link with employment, on the alleged facts there was a sufficient link with the claimant’s past employment with the respondent to fall within the terms of the COT3.