Counsel met with the tenant and sole director of Green Man Pub and Hotel Limited following receipt of a pre-action letter from solicitors acting for Brian Mongan and others. The letter alleged discriminatory refusal of service on 28 February and requested CCTV footage. The tenant was off-site at the time but received a suspicious phone call warning of travellers en route. The caller’s tone changed mid-call, pressing the tenant to confirm whether he would serve travellers. The tenant ended the call and contacted staff, who confirmed the group had arrived. Staff informed the group that the venue was closed for a darts tournament and a wake the following day. One individual became confrontational, demanding to speak to the manager and threatening to return with 20 others unless told they were being refused service due to their ethnicity. The manager, under pressure, made a statement that was later interpreted as an admission. CCTV footage was not preserved due to the system’s 28-day retention limit.
The claimants allege discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. The tenant acknowledged a longstanding reputation for refusing service to certain groups based on prior incidents but denied unlawful discrimination. The incident appears orchestrated, with covert recording and entrapment tactics used to elicit a specific response. The absence of CCTV and formal policies was noted as a vulnerability. The tenant also raised concerns about a separate hotel booking involving a guest named Terrance McDonagh, whose behaviour was flagged but did not result in incident. Additionally, the tenant discussed public liability risks related to fireworks and flares in the beer garden, which have led to multiple injury claims and increased insurance excess.
Counsel advised that refusal of service must not be based on protected characteristics and recommended avoiding dialogue that could be construed as discriminatory. Staff should be trained to refer legal queries to counsel and avoid speculative explanations. A holding letter should be sent to the claimants’ solicitors, directing all correspondence to chambers and challenging the vague nature of the allegations. Counsel also advised against self-insuring or offering direct settlements, and instead recommended signage and admission policies to mitigate liability. The use of bodycams was deemed appropriate for evidentiary purposes. Counsel further recommended preparing a bespoke company handbook outlining anti-discrimination policies, staff training, and health and safety protocols. The matter was identified as part of a broader pattern of coordinated claims, and proactive steps were advised to protect the business.
Call us – Mon-Fri 8:30am – 6:30pm
+44 (0) 20 3034 0077
By submitting this form, I accept this website’s Privacy Policy