Case 4100101/2021 · Employment Tribunal

ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: 4100101/2021 (A) Issued Following Open Preliminary Hearing Held at Edinburgh on th of July 2021 at 10.30 am Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Mrs S Paterson v Voyage Ltd — 2021

Case reference: 4100101/2021
Decision date: 13 August 2021
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge Joseph
Venue: Edinburgh

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: 4100101/2021 (A) Issued Following Open Preliminary Hearing Held at Edinburgh on th of July 2021 at 10.30 am Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Mrs S Paterson

Respondent

Voyage Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the open preliminary hearing on 14 July 2021, the tribunal accepted by concession that Mrs Paterson had disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 during the period 6 to 18 August 2020 by reason of ischaemic heart disease, benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, and anxiety and depression. It did not accept on the evidence that post traumatic stress disorder was established as a separate qualifying impairment. Applying the approach in Goodwin and Royal Bank of Scotland v Morris, the tribunal held that the claimant had not proved PTSD on the balance of probabilities. It also recorded that, for the discrimination and harassment complaints, the claimant's husband was accepted as a disabled person at the material time.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The claimant advanced an apparent 'automatic unfair dismissal' complaint based on an offer to prove that dismissal was for a reason relating to disability. The tribunal held that such a complaint has no statutory basis under s.104 ERA 1996 because Equality Act rights are not among the rights listed there, and it dismissed the claim for want of jurisdiction. It also noted that an ordinary unfair dismissal claim under s.98 ERA 1996 would require two years' continuous service.	Dismissed	—	—
Disability discrimination	Direct discrimination under s.13 EqA 2010 was considered only at an open preliminary hearing. The tribunal declined to strike out the allegation at paragraph 1(b) of the agreed list of issues, where Sandra McNay was alleged to have said, 'Go home to your husband and do something useful instead of doing something here', because that wording could permit an inference linked to the husband's disability. It declined to strike out the remaining direct discrimination allegations, but held that allegations 1(a) and 1(c)-(h) had little reasonable prospect of success for Rule 39 purposes and were capable of being the subject of deposit orders; no final merits disposal was made.	Other	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Indirect discrimination under s.19 EqA 2010 was based on the alleged PCP of requiring the claimant to undertake waking night shifts and sign a Working Time Regulations opt-out form on 11 August 2020. The tribunal did not strike out the claim, but held that it had little reasonable prospect of success because the claimant was not in fact required to undertake waking night shifts or work in excess of 48 hours. No final merits disposal was made.	Other	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Harassment under s.26 EqA 2010 was considered on the agreed list of issues. The tribunal held that the allegations at paragraphs 1(a) to 1(f) and 1(g)(ii)-(viii) had little reasonable prospect of success because the claimant had not given notice of a basis showing the conduct was related to disability. It did not strike out allegation 1(g)(i), that Sandra McNay and Frank Cearnes did not wear masks at the probation meeting, because that could potentially be related to the claimant's disability and perceived vulnerability to Covid-19. No final merits disposal was made.

Legal tests applied

16 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.