Ringway Hounslow Highway Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant, a street cleaner employed by the respondent, brought his third claim for age discrimination and age-related harassment. The tribunal struck out the claims on the basis of no reasonable prospect of success, finding the claimant had not advanced any sufficient basis for contending that the conduct complained of had anything to do with his age, and that matters involving the alleged toilet and thirst bans constituted impermissible relitigation of previously decided claims.

The tribunal struck out the claims because the claimant failed to plead any new basis connecting the conduct to age, instead relying on matters already rejected by previous tribunals. The tribunal found that the claimant had not advanced any sufficient basis for contending that the conduct complained of had anything to do with his age, and that claims relating to the alleged toilet and thirst bans involved impermissible relitigation of matters already determined.

• •Whether age-related harassment by supervisor occurred
• •Whether respondent failed to properly investigate complaints
• •Whether alleged toilet and thirst bans constituted age discrimination
• •Whether transfer to different geographical area without team constituted age discrimination and victimisation
• •Whether claims involve relitigation of previously determined matters
• •Whether claimant has pleaded sufficient basis to connect conduct to age

PHCM Order1 of 12September 2023 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant:Mr Alex Minin Respondent:Ringway Hounslow Highway Ltd Heard at:London South via CVPOn: 23 February 2026 Before:Employment Judge Beckett Appearances: For the claimant: in person For the respondent: Mr Stuart Sanders (counsel) RESERVED JUDGMENT The Claimant’s claims relating to age discrimination are struck out on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect of success. REASONS 1. The parties appeared over CVP as previously agreed. 2. Parties had provided a bundle of documents (388 pages), the respondent had sent a skeleton argument (13 pages), and there was a witness statement from Mr Timothy Hurley (13 pages). 3. I was also sent the Case Management Order dated 16 October 2025 drafted by Employment Judge Ord. PHCM Order2 of 12September 2023 Claims 4. The claims made relate to the following incidents: 1. Age related harassment by the claimant’s supervisor, Mr M Carter, on 9 January 2025; 2. Age discrimination in respect of alleged failures by the respondent properly to investigate the claimant’s complaints about that incident; 3. Age discrimination in respect of the alleged imposition of a prohibition on the claimants using the toilet or drinking water without permission, known as the “alleged toilet ban” and “alleged thirst ban”; 4. Complaint about being transferred to a different geographical area as a single worker without his team, which was claimed as age discrimination and victimisation. The decision to move him was made by Mr T Hurley. 5. The respondent argued that the claims relating to age discrimination or age- related harassment should be struck out, or that in the alternative, deposit orders should be made. Background and submissions 6. This is the third claim that the claimant has brought against the respondent. He remains employed by the respondent as a street cleaner. 7. The first claim was made in respect of alleged unfavourable treatment or harassment by his supervisor, Mr M …