Case 4100142/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Ms R Membury v Highland Health Board — 2024

Case reference: 4100142/2022
Decision date: 16 April 2024
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge Smith

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms R Membury

Respondent

Highland Health Board

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing on 20 March 2024, Employment Judge Smith struck out Ms R Membury's claim under rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant said the only live issue was disability discrimination arising from Highland Health Board's decision of 31 March 2021 that she was not eligible for a compensation payment under the respondent's "Healing Process" scheme. For the strikeout application, the tribunal assumed in the claimant's favour that she was disabled by reason of PTSD and chronic pain, that there was a sufficient connection with the employment relationship, and that time could be extended under section 123 Equality Act 2010. The respondent's letter said the panel had concluded that the experience described was as a patient and not within the scope of the scheme, although the claimant had also been employed by the respondent between 2012 and 2014.

The tribunal rejected direct discrimination under section 13 because the claimant's own case was that the decision was not made because of disability. She said the reason was that the respondent did not want to pay her and had relied on the distinction between patient and employee status. The tribunal also said there was no harassment claim advanced: the claimant did not say the decision itself was unwanted conduct related to disability, and her earlier agenda left the harassment section blank.

Indirect discrimination under section 19 and failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 to 21 also failed. The tribunal found that the claimant did not identify a neutral provision, criterion or practice that disadvantaged people sharing her specific disabilities, and on her case the scheme was said to have been manipulated to produce a result adverse to her personally. The discrimination arising from disability claim under section 15 failed for the same overall reason: the claimant did not identify any thing arising in consequence of disability that led to the refusal of payment, and her case remained that the respondent simply did not want to pay her. The tribunal therefore concluded that no claim within the proceedings had any reasonable prospect of success and struck out the case.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Direct discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal held that the claimant's own case was that the 31 March 2021 eligibility decision was not made because of disability, but because the respondent did not want to pay her and relied on the patient/employee distinction.	Struck out	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Indirect discrimination under section 19 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found no neutral provision, criterion or practice and no case that people sharing the claimant's specific disabilities were put at a group disadvantage.	Struck out	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 to 21 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal held the same reasoning defeated this claim: the claimant did not identify a neutral PCP and did not advance a viable comparative disadvantage case.	Struck out	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal held the claimant did not identify any thing arising in consequence of disability that caused the refusal of the compensation payment, and her own case was that the respondent simply did not want to pay her.	Struck out	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

13 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.