Case 2303272/2025 · Employment Tribunal
G Brady v Ministry of Defence — 2026
- Case reference
- 2303272/2025
- Decision date
- 12 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean Major
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
G Brady
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing, Major G Brady withdrew his complaints of unfair dismissal and detrimental treatment for having made a protected disclosure. Employment Judge S MacLean recorded the oral withdrawals under rule 50 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 and indicated that a judgment formally dismissing those claims under rule 51 would be issued. The sole issue determined at the hearing was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the complaint of less favourable treatment because of part-time worker status.
Major Brady, a reservist member of the UK Armed Forces, alleged that his suspension from service during an internal investigation imposed financial disadvantages that a full-time regular service member would not have experienced. The alleged consequences included possible loss of an annual tax-free gratuity, pension contributions, long-service medals and periods counting towards promotion.
The Tribunal considered Major Brady's April 2024 and October 2025 service complaints. It found that the April complaint, read as a whole, concerned the manner of his suspension and investigation, alleged bullying, and the emotional and personal impact upon him. The October complaint provided further context concerning alleged bullying and abuse of process but did not refer to less favourable treatment as a part-time worker. The references to his civilian employment and to different interview arrangements for reservists did not, in the Tribunal's assessment, amount to an allegation of less favourable treatment because of part-time status.
Applying regulation 13(3)(a) of the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 purposively, the Tribunal assessed non-technically whether the substance of the service complaints concerned the same matter as the Tribunal claim. It concluded that the service complaints could not fairly and objectively be understood as alleging less favourable treatment as a part-time worker. The statutory precondition was therefore not met, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction, and the part-time worker complaint was dismissed without any monetary award being recorded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant orally withdrew this complaint at the preliminary hearing. The Tribunal recorded the withdrawal under rule 50 and indicated that a judgment formally dismissing the claim under rule 51 would be issued. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The complaint concerned alleged detrimental treatment for making a protected disclosure. The claimant orally withdrew it at the preliminary hearing; the Tribunal recorded the withdrawal under rule 50 and indicated that a judgment formally dismissing the claim under rule 51 would be issued. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the requirement in regulation 13(3)(a) of the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 was not met. The Tribunal did not determine the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Regulation 13(3)(a) of the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
- Purposive construction of regulation 13 PTWR
- Whether the service complaints concerned the same matter as the Tribunal claim, assessed non-technically and as a whole
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.