Abizie McKendrick v Lothian Health Board — 2025

The claimant brought complaints of direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, victimisation and constructive dismissal, relying on being black Ghanaian. The respondent applied for strike out, or alternatively deposit orders, on the basis that specified allegations had little or no reasonable prospects of success. The tribunal considered the claimant's pleaded allegations, the prior case management process, the contemporaneous documents and submissions from both parties.

The tribunal found that direct discrimination complaint 7, concerning an asserted requirement to meet the Deputy CEO while grieving, had no reasonable prospects because the contemporaneous documents showed the claimant was not required to attend and had the opportunity to postpone. The same reasoning led to victimisation complaint 7 being struck out. Direct discrimination complaints 9 and 10, and victimisation complaints 9 and 10, were found to have no reasonable prospects, but were not struck out because of their proximity to the resignation and their connection to other issues proceeding to a final hearing; instead, deposits were ordered.

The tribunal found that direct discrimination complaint 2 had little reasonable prospects of success because the basis of inference was weak and only articulated at the hearing, and ordered a deposit. It declined to order deposits for several other allegations despite noting weaknesses, having regard to their apparent importance or connection to other complaints. The claimant was ordered to pay five deposits of £30, totalling £150, as a condition of continuing with the specified allegations.