Case 4102597/2016 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102597/2016 Preliminary Hearing at Edinburgh on February 2017 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Mrs Dorota Jakusz-Gostomska v Represented by Mr L Moodie Solicitor Little Sisters of the Poor Scotland — 2017
- Case reference
- 4102597/2016
- Decision date
- 27 March 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lucas
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102597/2016 Preliminary Hearing at Edinburgh on February 2017 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Mrs Dorota Jakusz-Gostomska
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing in Edinburgh on 27 February 2017, the respondent applied to strike out the claim, relying on the claimant's failure to comply with tribunal orders made on 18 August 2016 requiring further specification of the claims. Mr Moodie for the claimant said he had recently been unable to work because of medical problems, and by email of 2 December 2016 he sent a specification of claim and schedule of loss setting out a constructive unfair dismissal claim and a claim under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal found that the claimant had now responded to the orders and that the response was adequate. It accepted that the delay was explained by the solicitor's health difficulties and said it was not minded to take the step of striking out the claim as a whole. The tribunal therefore refused the respondent's application and directed that the case should proceed to a hearing on the merits as soon as possible.
On the discrimination side, the tribunal rejected the submission that the harassment allegations were unclear. It held that the claim was comprehensible as allegations that Mr McCulloch subjected the claimant to harassment on grounds of sex and race, including remarks said to refer to her as a cow and as a foreigner. The tribunal also stated that the claim now rested on the pleadings as they stood on 2 December 2016, so evidence about other unparticularised incidents would not be fair to the respondent. The issue of time bar was reserved to the final hearing as a preliminary issue.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The respondent's application to strike out the claimant's constructive unfair dismissal claim for non-compliance with the tribunal's orders was refused. The tribunal found that the claimant had now responded to the August 2016 orders by email on 2 December 2016 and that it would not be in the interests of justice to strike out the claim. No merits finding was made. | Other | — | — |
| Harassment | The respondent's alternative application to strike out the harassment allegations was also refused. The tribunal held that the pleaded harassment case was sufficiently comprehensible, describing it as allegations of harassment on grounds of sex and race based on remarks said to refer to the claimant as a foreigner and as a cow. Time bar was reserved to the final hearing. | Other | Race | — |
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.