Case 3202347/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Alistair Patterson v Department For International Trade — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202347/2019
- Decision date
- 17 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Alistair Patterson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented a claim on 3 October 2019 arising from an unsuccessful application for the post of International Trade Trainee with the Department for International Trade. At a preliminary hearing on 14 February 2020, the tribunal identified a disability reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 and a separate claim under section 63F of the Employment Rights Act 1996 concerning study or training rights.
This judgment dealt only with the section 63F claim. The claimant accepted that he had never been an employee of the respondent, but argued that section 39(2)(b) of the Equality Act 2010 and notions of staff development meant that prospective employees should have training or learning opportunities. The tribunal rejected that submission, holding that the Equality Act 2010 and the Employment Rights Act 1996 are separate regimes and that the ERA right in issue was limited to qualifying employees with 26 weeks' continuous service.
Applying rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal held that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success. On the claimant's own case he was an applicant for employment, had never been employed by the respondent, and did not have the required period of continuous service. The section 63F claim was therefore struck out. The tribunal recorded that the remaining Equality Act 2010 disability claim would proceed to a final hearing listed for two days after 22 February 2021, with case management orders made by consent.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim under section 63F of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was struck out under rule 37 for no reasonable prospects of success. The tribunal held that the claimant was only an applicant for employment, had never been employed by the respondent, and could not meet the 26 weeks' continuous service requirement for a qualifying employee. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- no reasonable prospects of success
- s.63D ERA 1996 qualifying employee requirement
- s.63F ERA 1996
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.