Failure to reply to email: self-employed solicitor's discrimination claim dismissed
A family law solicitor who claimed Sinclairslaw Ltd failed to respond to her email because of her age or sex has lost her discrimination claim. The tribunal found the non-response was an innocent oversight.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #self-employed-consultant
- #solicitor
- #family-law
- #age-discrimination
- #sex-discrimination
- #failure-to-respond
- #commercial-nonsense
Key facts
- The claimant was a self-employed consultant solicitor at the respondent firm from 2010.
- On 23 March 2022, the claimant emailed Mr Evans seeking clarification of her employment status and HR documents.
- Mr Evans did not reply to the email, which he later admitted was an oversight.
- The claimant's only remaining claim was that the failure to respond was due to her age or sex.
- The tribunal found Mr Evans' failure to respond was not motivated by the claimant's age or sex.
- The tribunal dismissed both the age and sex discrimination claims.
Timeline
-
Offer of engagement
Mr Evans emailed the claimant offering self-employed consultant terms with 37% of fee income.
-
Claimant accepted terms
The claimant replied accepting the proposed terms.
-
Last payment to claimant
The claimant received her final payment from the respondent.
-
Claimant emailed Mr Evans
The claimant emailed Mr Evans seeking confirmation of her employment status and HR documents.
-
Claimant sent follow-up email
The claimant sent a further email to Mr Evans.
-
Claimant filed ET1
The claimant commenced employment tribunal proceedings.
-
Application to amend claim
The claimant applied to amend her claim to add two further allegations.
-
Preliminary hearing (status and time limits)
Employment Judge Jenkins heard evidence on employment status and time limits.
-
Preliminary judgment sent
Judge Jenkins issued judgment finding claimant not an employee under ERA but in employment under EqA, and struck out most claims as out of time.
-
Final hearing
Tribunal heard the remaining claim of direct discrimination (age and sex) regarding the failure to respond to the 23 March 2022 email.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the respondent's failure to respond to the claimant's email of 23 March 2022 was an act of direct discrimination because of the claimant's age or sex.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both the age and sex discrimination claims.
The key reason was that Mr Evans' failure to respond was an innocent oversight, not motivated by the claimant's protected characteristics.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A single failure to respond to an email is unlikely to amount to discrimination unless there is evidence of discriminatory motive.
- Self-employed consultants can bring discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 even if they are not employees under employment rights legislation.
- Tribunals will consider the context and explanation for alleged discriminatory acts — an admitted oversight can defeat a discrimination claim.
- Claims must be brought within the time limits (usually three months) or they will be struck out unless it is just and equitable to extend time.
This case shows that not every workplace slight amounts to discrimination. The claimant, a family law solicitor who had worked as a self-employed consultant for Sinclairslaw Ltd for 11 years, alleged that the firm's deputy chief executive ignored her email because of her age or sex. The tribunal accepted that the email was not answered, but found that it was a simple oversight — the deputy chief executive admitted he had missed it.
What the tribunal considered
The tribunal had to decide whether the failure to respond was 'because of' the claimant's age or sex. It heard evidence from both sides and concluded that there was no link between the non-response and the claimant's protected characteristics. The deputy chief executive's explanation was accepted as genuine, and the claimant's suspicions were not supported by the facts.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that discrimination claims require evidence of a causal connection between the treatment and a protected characteristic. A mistake or oversight, even if careless, is not automatically discriminatory. For self-employed consultants, the case also confirms that they can bring discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010, even if they are not employees for other purposes. However, the outcome here shows that the threshold for proving discrimination remains high.
Similar cases
Claims dismissed after claimants fail to attend final hearing
Two former employees who brought claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination and redundancy had their cases thrown out after failing to attend the final hearing or provide any evidence.
Former employee wins unfair dismissal claim against Asda
A former employee succeeded in her unfair dismissal claim against Asda Stores Ltd, but her age discrimination and harassment complaints were dismissed. She was awarded £27,924.06.
Remote worker's constructive dismissal claim fails over grievance handling
A Sales Administrator with 11 years' service resigned after a workplace argument and poor communication, but the tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract or discrimination.
Former employee wins discrimination and holiday pay claims against PMP Recruitment
A former employee of PMP Recruitment Limited succeeded in claims of direct discrimination and harassment on grounds of age, race, and sex, and was awarded over £19,000 in compensation.