Case 4100362/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Mullen v Royal London Mutual Insurance Society and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 4100362/2026
- Decision date
- 8 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Porter SIR
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs S Mullen
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs S Mullen brought proceedings described as disability discrimination and detriment/dismissal due to exercising rights under the Public Interest Disclosure Act. She had worked for The Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Ltd as an Account Manager from 15 November 2011 to 18 November 2024. Earlier proceedings against that respondent had been dismissed by Employment Judge Macleod on 5 August 2025.
At the preliminary hearing, Mullen confirmed that her proposed amendment contained all her claims against Royal London. It proposed post-employment victimisation and harassment. After the Tribunal explained section 108(7) of the Equality Act 2010, she withdrew the victimisation claim. The remaining harassment allegation concerned an internal document dated 13 March 2025 which she obtained following a subject access request in late March or early April 2026.
Applying Selkent v Moore, the Tribunal noted that the amendment was sought early and that there was a cogent argument for extending time on a just and equitable basis because the information had only recently come to light. However, following Greasley-Adams v Royal Mail Group Ltd, it concluded that the harassment claim appeared to have no reasonable prospects of success because Mullen became aware of the alleged harassment more than a year after the event. The balance of hardship and injustice favoured Royal London, which would otherwise face the time and cost of defending the claim. Permission to amend was refused, and the case against Royal London was dismissed under Rule 38.
As to Quilter Plc, Mullen accepted that it had never been her past, present or prospective employer and that she had never held worker status with it. A document identified Henderson Stone & Co as her prospective employer. After considering sections 39 and 41 of the Equality Act 2010, the Tribunal struck out the claims against Quilter under Rule 38 as having no reasonable prospects of success.
The Tribunal dismissed all claims against both respondents. The reasons record no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | Proposed post-employment victimisation claim against the First Respondent withdrawn after the Tribunal explained section 108(7) of the Equality Act 2010. The reasons do not identify a protected characteristic for this claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Harassment | Permission to amend to bring post-employment harassment against the First Respondent was refused. As the amendment contained the entirety of the remaining case against that respondent, the Tribunal dismissed that case under Rule 38 as having no reasonable prospects of success. The reasons do not expressly identify the protected characteristic underlying the proposed harassment claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claims against the Second Respondent were collectively struck out under Rule 38. The reasons identify disability discrimination at the outset but do not specify its individual statutory forms. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The proceedings included detriment/dismissal due to exercising rights under the Public Interest Disclosure Act. All claims against the Second Respondent were struck out collectively; the reasons do not separately analyse the whistleblowing claims. The claimant confirmed that her amendment contained the entirety of her claims against the First Respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024: no reasonable prospects of success
- Section 108(7) of the Equality Act 2010
- Selkent v Moore 1996 ICR 836 EAT: amendment applications and the balance of hardship and injustice
- Section 123 of the Equality Act 2010: just and equitable extension of time
- Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010: subjective and objective assessment of harassment
- Greasley-Adams v Royal Mail Group Ltd
- Pemberton v Inwood (2018) ICR 291, CA
- Sections 39 and 41 of the Equality Act 2010
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.