St John's church, Downshire Hill, is one of the few surviving Church of England proprietary chapels: although it is recognised as a church within the Diocese of London, it is owned by the congregation and the congregation bears all the costs of the staff and the building. It receives no support from and makes no contribution to diocesan funds. The trustees employed Mr Gould, who married in 1997, from 1995 until his summary dismissal in August 2016. There was no dispute as to the existence of an employment relationship. Difficulties in his marriage were raised by the trustees’ leadership team and in May 2015 they proposed that he take a sabbatical in order to attempt to restore his marriage. He did not wish to take the sabbatical but came under pressure to do so. In August 2016 he was dismissed with immediate effect by letter. Simler J said that she had not seen the letter but understood that it gave a breakdown in the relationship of trust and confidence necessary for Mr Gould's continued employment as the reason for his dismissal. Mr Gould claimed, however, that he had been dismissed because of the difficulties in his marriage. Had he not been married he would not have been dismissed and, therefore, he had been directly discriminated against on the ground of marriage, contrary to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 read with section 39(2)(c). The Employment Tribunal dismissed his claim and he appealed.

Counsel for the trustees argued that Mr Gould had been dismissed because of the unresolved difficulties in his marriage, not because he was married. Many married couples did not face marriage difficulties, while many unmarried couples faced equivalent relationship difficulties – therefore marriage difficulties were not a proxy for marriage. Simler J was unconvinced, stating that the decision to dismiss Mr Gould depended on the fact that he was married and having marital difficulties, with the emphasis on ‘marital’ rather than ‘difficulties’. The trustees found marital difficulties problematic because of the importance they attached to the institution of marriage and there was an arguable case that that had been the reason for Mr Gould's dismissal. That composite reason was why the trustees had treated him as they had and the case should have been permitted to proceed. She was satisfied that the Employment Judge was in error of law in striking out Mr Gould's claim. The appeal was allowed and the decision to strike out the claim set aside. [Frank Cranmer]