Claimant v University of Aberdeen — 2024

This was a preliminary hearing about whether the claim should be struck out under rule 37(1)(a), whether the Lawn Tennis Association should be joined as a respondent, and whether a deposit order should be made. The dispute arose from the University of Aberdeen's recruitment for a University Tennis Co-ordinator post. In the further particulars, the live allegations were pleaded as direct and indirect discrimination on race, sex and sexual orientation, harassment on those grounds, and victimisation.

The tribunal compared the claimant's account with contemporaneous documents. It accepted that he applied and was interviewed, but the interview notes and selection form recorded him as the preferred candidate, Dr Roberts emailed Mr Grant Rae that the panel had decided to appoint Ray Joseph, and Mr Rae's emails of 1 and 6 December 2023 offered the post and chased a response. An internal message-trace report showed those emails were sent to the correct address and accepted by Google's mail servers. The tribunal also noted the claimant's email to Dr Roberts thanking her for the information and encouragement to apply, which did not sit comfortably with his later account of her alleged comment.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant may not have received the emails, but held he could not show they were not sent. It rejected the submission that the case depended on a general fabrication allegation, said the altered copy of the 6 December email did not undermine the original send trace, and found the claimant had no reasonable prospect of proving that he had not been offered the job for discriminatory reasons. It therefore struck out the claim in its entirety under rule 37(1)(a).

The tribunal refused the application to join the Lawn Tennis Association because the University advertised the vacancy, would have employed the successful candidate, and remained the proper respondent. It did not go on to consider the proposed deposit order after striking out the claim.