A discrimination claim by a disabled barrister has been dismissed due to ineligibility for judicial posts.
- The claim arose from applications for roles requiring experience the barrister did not possess.
- Employment Judge G Smart indicated the strike-out met the high threshold due to the clarity of facts.
- The barrister, Jacob Meagher, believed his New Zealand experience was valid, but the Judicial Appointments Commission disagreed.
- The tribunal concluded ineligibility negated genuine interest in the roles, leading to the claim’s dismissal.
The tribunal’s decision to dismiss a discrimination claim filed by a disabled barrister rests on the premise of ineligibility for the judicial posts applied for. Despite allegations of indirect discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments, the case failed to surmount the high hurdle typically demanded to strike out discrimination claims, as the facts were sufficiently plain.
Jacob Meagher, who qualified in New Zealand in 2016 and was called to the Bar in England and Wales in 2018, sought appointments as a deputy district judge in 2021 and 2022. This position necessitated five years of post-call experience, a criterion Mr Meagher did not meet. Despite his assertion that a Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) employee affirmed his New Zealand experience would suffice, this claim was contested by the staff member involved.
Judge Smart, while assuming the conversation might have transpired as claimed, noted Mr Meagher’s legal obligation to verify his eligibility independently. This aspect was critical in undermining his case of reasonable mistake, as the advertisement literature for the roles explicitly outlined the experience required and referenced relevant statutes.
Although Mr Meagher exhibited genuine interest, the tribunal deemed him legally ineligible, consequently affecting his ability to claim discrimination. The body of evidence suggested that Mr Meagher should have been aware of his ineligibility, particularly given his qualifications and experience, which implied an ability to navigate and comprehend the judicial appointment requirements.
The tribunal also dismissed victimisation claims, premised on alleged failures to accommodate his disability with reasonable adjustments, as these were not substantiated by the evidence. Mr Meagher has since lodged a new claim pertaining to a more recent judicial application, indicating ongoing challenges in this domain.
The tribunal’s ruling underscores the necessity for applicants to ensure eligibility for positions to uphold claims of discrimination.
