Case 4101694/2017 · Employment Tribunal
J Hendry Members: Mr. A W Bruce Mr. A N Atkinson MS D Fitzpatrick v Represented by:15 Mr. M Briggs Solicitor The Scottish Ministers — 2018
- Case reference
- 4101694/2017
- Decision date
- 10 August 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr.
- Venue
- Aberdeen
- Panel members
- Mr. A W Bruce, Mr. A N Atkinson, MS D Fitzpatrick
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J Hendry Members: Mr. A W Bruce Mr. A N Atkinson MS D Fitzpatrick
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a fisheries officer with Marine Scotland in Scrabster, brought a harassment complaint about anonymous greeting cards received in February 2015, February 2016 and February 2017. She said the cards were sent by colleagues or former colleagues and pleaded harassment linked to age, sex and race; the written reasons concentrated on age and sex, while race was pleaded but not separately analysed in detail. The police investigated after the 2017 cards but could not identify the author or authors.
The majority accepted the cards were unwanted and unsettling and considered several of them to carry age- and sex-related references, including Canadian Jock, old troll, sexy mama, and comments about being grumpy or having been promoted. The case turned on attribution: the tribunal was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the cards had been sent by current employees of the respondents at the relevant times, and it could not say that one alternative explanation was more probable than another. Mr. Atkinson dissented and would have found enough to conclude that current employees were responsible.
The tribunal also considered the section 109 Equality Act defence and was not convinced the respondents had shown all reasonable steps, criticising the limited HR response, but that did not affect the result because liability was not established. It did not accept the claimant's evidence about the full extent of distress, and said that if liability had been proved it would have awarded £2,000 for injury to feelings rather than the £30,000 sought. The claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Same anonymous-card allegations; the majority considered some of the cards capable of relating to age, but dismissed the claim because it was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that current employees of the respondents sent the cards. Mr. Atkinson dissented. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | Same anonymous-card allegations; the majority considered several of the cards capable of relating to sex, but dismissed the claim because it was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that current employees of the respondents sent the cards. Mr. Atkinson dissented. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Race was pleaded in the ET1, but the written reasons concentrated on age and sex rather than race-specific conduct; the harassment claim was dismissed with the others. Mr. Atkinson dissented. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.109 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Nazir and Aslam v Asim and Nottinghamshire Black Partnership
- Hendry v Clan Line Steamers
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.