Case 4102663/2020 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102663/2020 Preliminary Hearing by Cloud Video Platform on January 2022 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Paul Douglas v Represented byMs E Matheson Solicitor North Lanarkshire Council — 2022
- Case reference
- 4102663/2020
- Decision date
- 27 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M MacLeod Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102663/2020 Preliminary Hearing by Cloud Video Platform on January 2022 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Paul Douglas
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing by Cloud Video Platform on 24 January 2022, Employment Judge M Macleod considered the claimant's application dated 15 July 2021 to amend his claim. The respondent opposed the proposed disability discrimination amendment, and the hearing proceeded with both parties represented by solicitors.
The tribunal granted the amendment so far as it sought to introduce an automatically unfair dismissal claim under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and a detriment claim under section 47B of that Act. The judge said there was a clear basis for those additional claims from the facts pled in the ET1, that they amounted to no more than re-labelling of the complaints already made, and that the respondent did not ultimately oppose those parts of the application.
The tribunal refused the amendment insofar as it sought to introduce claims of disability discrimination. The note records that the claimant wished to advance direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, harassment, discrimination arising in consequence of disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments, but there was insufficient clarity and specification of the alleged unlawful acts for the tribunal or respondent to identify the case to be met. The refusal was expressly in hoc statu, with permission for the claimant to renew the application within 21 days if further specification was provided, and 14 days for the respondent to respond.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant's application to amend was granted insofar as it sought to introduce a claim of automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996 based on protected disclosures. This was an amendment decision only; no substantive merits finding was made. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The claimant's application to amend was granted insofar as it sought to introduce a detriment claim under section 47B ERA 1996 based on protected disclosures. This was an amendment decision only; no substantive merits finding was made. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The application to amend to add disability discrimination claims was refused in hoc statu because there was insufficient specification of the unlawful acts relied upon. The claimant was told he could renew the application with further detail within 21 days. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.