Case 4100988/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Watson v - Solicitor The Inverclyde Council — 2022
- Case reference
- 4100988/2022
- Decision date
- 21 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Neilson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Watson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr J Watson, brought a disability discrimination claim arising from a recruitment process for an apprentice joiner post with The Inverclyde Council. At this preliminary hearing the tribunal accepted the evidence of the 2012 Skylark assessment and the later evidence from the claimant and his father, and found that the claimant had a mental impairment, autism, which had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. The tribunal therefore found that he was disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period from June to December 2021.
The tribunal treated the reasonable adjustments complaint relating to the December 2021 interview as a fresh section 20 claim, but allowed amendment. It held that the respondent had been put on notice of the point in the written response dated 27 April 2022, that the delay was limited, and that refusing amendment would cause material prejudice to the claimant. The tribunal therefore extended time on a just and equitable basis and directed the claimant to provide a written clarification of the section 20 case, with the respondent then to have 28 days to answer it.
The tribunal did not decide the respondent's time bar argument about the June 2021 events, because it considered there was at least a prima facie argument that the June application and the December interview formed one course of conduct. It left that issue to the final hearing, noting that liability and the timescale issue may be linked. The tribunal refused leave to amend in respect of the section 15 claim because the proposed amendment was not sufficiently identified and the tribunal could not discern what the alleged 'something' was. No remedy was awarded at this stage.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Original claim was brought as direct disability discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. At this preliminary hearing the tribunal found that the claimant was disabled within section 6 during the period June to December 2021, but it made no final liability determination on the alleged June 2021 discrimination and reserved the time bar issue to the final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The section 20 reasonable adjustments point concerning the December 2021 interview was treated as a fresh ground of claim, but the tribunal allowed amendment and held it just and equitable to extend time. The claimant was ordered to provide written clarification of the section 20 claim within 14 days, and the respondent was given 28 days to respond. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The section 15 claim for discrimination arising from disability was treated as a fresh ground of claim, but the tribunal refused leave to amend at this stage because the proposed amendment was not properly set out in writing and the tribunal could not tell what the 'something' was said to give rise to unfavourable treatment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v Patent Office four questions
- Schedule 1 paragraph 2 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 5(1) Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Selkent Bus Company v Moore
- Adedeji v University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
- British Coal v Keeble
- City of Edinburgh Council v Kaur
- Chandhok v Tirkey
- Chief Constable of Essex Police v Kovacevic
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.