Case 4100085/2024 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100085/2024 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Batul Hassan v Represented by Ms Z Hussain Lay Representative ISS Facility Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 4100085/2024
- Decision date
- 4 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Macleod
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100085/2024 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Batul Hassan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim for discrimination arising from disability. It had previously indicated, following the preliminary hearing on 7 December 2024 and earlier case management directions, that further particulars were required and that failure to clarify the claim could lead to strike out. The parties agreed the issue should be determined on written submissions alone.
After considering the claimant's further material, including references to GP records and to stress, anxiety, depression, dyslexia and PTSD, the tribunal held that the claim still did not set out with sufficient clarity what 'something arising' in consequence of disability was relied on, or what specific unfavourable treatment was alleged. The tribunal noted that the respondent had continued to ask for clarification about the disciplinary action, the promotion decision and the meetings said to have occurred in 2021 and 2022, but the claimant had not provided the necessary detail. It concluded that the section 15 claim had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out under Rule 38(1)(a), with some reluctance. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Strike out under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024 for lack of reasonable prospect of success. The respondent also relied on Rule 38(1)(c) non-compliance, but the judgment's stated basis for strike out was Rule 38(1)(a). | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
- Rule 38(1)(c) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
- Rule 37(2) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Faron Fariba v Pfizer Limited & Others
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.