Case 4102333/2022 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Nos: 4102333/2022 & 4100441/2024 Held at Aberdeen on June 2024 Employment Judge J M Hendry v Represented by, Ms R Cox Grampian Community Law Centre Miss Kathryn Hilton Highland Council — 2024
- Case reference
- 4102333/2022
- Decision date
- 3 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Nos: 4102333/2022 & 4100441/2024 Held at Aberdeen on June 2024 Employment Judge J M Hendry
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 24 June 2024, Miss Hilton had already withdrawn her disability discrimination claims. Highland Council then pursued a Rule 37 strike-out application against the remaining Equality Act and whistleblowing allegations, and the tribunal noted that the separate unfair dismissal claim would continue.
The tribunal struck out the direct sex discrimination claim under s.13 Equality Act 2010. It held that the pleadings did not identify a causal link between the complained-of lone working, night patrols and extended street patrols and Miss Hilton's sex, and that concerns about being unsafe as a woman did not themselves establish treatment because of sex. The strike-out application was refused on the indirect sex discrimination claim, because the tribunal considered that lone patrols in darkness could amount to an arguable PCP and that the comparator point was not fatal at this stage.
On victimisation under s.27 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal struck out the first three detriment allegations because they predated the April 2022 ET1 and no adequate causal link to a protected act was pleaded. The later grievance allegation was not struck out, although the tribunal said it had little prospects of success on the material before it. On the public interest disclosure-detriment claim, the tribunal held that reporting that it was unsafe to patrol alone in darkness could potentially amount to a qualifying disclosure under s.43B ERA 1996, but the public interest element still needed to be addressed, so the strike-out application was refused on that claim.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claimant withdrew the disability discrimination claims shortly before the 24 June 2024 preliminary hearing; the tribunal made no merits decision on them. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010 was struck out under Rule 37 because the pleadings did not show that the complained-of treatment was because of sex. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The strike-out application was refused for the indirect sex discrimination claim. The tribunal held that lone patrols and working in darkness could amount to an arguable PCP and that the claimant could rely on a male comparator at this stage. | Other | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The first three detriment allegations were struck out because they predated the April 2022 ET1 and lacked a pleaded link to a protected act. The later grievance allegation was not struck out, but the tribunal said it had little prospects of success on the pleadings. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The strike-out application was refused on the public interest disclosure-detriment claim. The tribunal held that saying it was unsafe to patrol alone in darkness could potentially amount to a qualifying disclosure, but the public interest element still needed to be addressed. |
Legal tests applied
13 references- Rule 37 striking out
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students' Union
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Ahir v British Airways
- Bahl v Law Society
- Madarassy v Nomura International
- Ishola v Transport for London
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.19 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.43B ERA 1996
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.