K Cook v Gentoo Group Limited
[2023] EAT 12
D McGonagle v Jaguar Land Rover Limited
22 November 2022
[2023] EAT 24
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A man was denied a car loan plan because he was too young (under 55). A judge said he wasn't discriminated against. A higher court said the first judge made a mistake and needs to look at it again, because the original decision may have been based on something the man never got a chance to argue.
Key Facts
- •Mr McGonagle, aged 54, took voluntary redundancy and was denied access to a Retired Manager's Loan Agreement Plan (RMLAP) due to not reaching age 55.
- •The RMLAP was available to managers aged 55+ with 5+ years' service or those under 55 retiring with a company pension.
- •The Employment Tribunal (ET) initially dismissed McGonagle's age discrimination claim, finding the age criterion proportionate.
- •McGonagle applied for reconsideration, which was refused by the Employment Judge. This refusal was then appealed to the EAT.
- •The EAT's scope was limited as it was a reconsideration appeal, not a full appeal of the original ET decision.
Legal Principles
Age discrimination claim requires demonstration of less favourable treatment due to age, and whether it is justified.
Equality Act 2010
The principle of finality of litigation
Employment Tribunal Rules
Reconsideration is only appropriate if there has been a material error in the original decision.
Employment Tribunal Rules and case law (cited but not specified)
Outcomes
The EAT allowed the appeal.
The Employment Judge erred in rejecting the reconsideration application; the ET's decision may have been based on an unpleaded and unsupported issue of parity between pension schemes, and McGonagle did not have the opportunity to address this.
The EAT directed reconsideration of the original ET decision.
To ensure fairness and allow McGonagle to address the unpleaded issue of parity, potentially affecting the original judgment.