The claimant was a highly qualified accountant in her 50’s. She applied for a large number of jobs advertised online as suitable for newly qualified accountants, and when not offered an interview, claimed age discrimination. All claims were dismissed on the basis that there had been neither direct nor indirect discrimination. The Tribunal went on to consider whether the claimant’s applications for the jobs in question were genuine, and held that they were not. The Tribunal also agreed with the respondent that the claims were both misconceived and an abuse of process, and accordingly made an order for costs against the claimant.

Although the Notice of Appeal disclosed no arguable error of law, a preliminary hearing was ordered under Rule 3(10) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993. Counsel for the claimant attempted to withdraw a concession by the claimant that she had agreed the applications had to be genuine before a statutory disadvantage could be suffered, since the concession was made by her previous Counsel without her permission. The EAT disagreed that the concession was wrong, and there was no exceptional reason for allowing the concession to be withdrawn. On the question as to whether the Tribunal had erred in law in concluding that the claimant’s job applications had not been genuine in the relevant sense, the EAT held that the Tribunal was fully entitled on the evidence before it to reach the conclusion that it did.