Case 4102665/2018 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102665/2018 Employment Judge: M A Macleod (sitting alone) Ms Ruth Seymour v Represented by Ms M Porteous CAB Volunteer Lochinvar Developments Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 4102665/2018
- Decision date
- 3 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buzzard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102665/2018 Employment Judge: M A Macleod (sitting alone) Ms Ruth Seymour
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing a preliminary hearing and orders made after 28 June 2018, the respondent applied on 9 August 2018 to strike out the claimant's direct disability discrimination claim under Rule 37(1). The application said the claimant had still not identified a relevant hypothetical comparator and that the direct discrimination claim remained unspecified and had little or no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant opposed the application. The tribunal described strike out as a draconian sanction and refused the respondent's application, holding that it would not be in the interests of justice to strike out the claim at that stage. It noted, however, that the claimant had still not complied with the earlier order requiring her to describe the hypothetical comparator and the acts or omissions relied upon.
The claimant also applied to strike out the response, relying on alleged scandalous, harassing and unreasonable conduct by the respondent's representative during a site visit on 7 August 2018. The tribunal held that the visit formed part of the preparations for the proceedings, but that it was faced with two competing versions of an unsatisfactory meeting and could not make findings about what had happened on the material before it. It found no basis to conclude that the respondent's representative had behaved scandalously, unreasonably or vexatiously, or that a fair trial was no longer possible, so the claimant's application was refused.
Instead of striking out the direct discrimination claim, the tribunal reissued the earlier comparator order as an unless order, requiring compliance by Friday 25 January 2019. It stated that if the claimant failed to comply, the direct discrimination claim would be struck out without further consideration. No monetary award was made in this judgment, which dealt only with the preliminary strike-out applications.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The respondent's strike-out application against the direct disability discrimination claim was refused. The tribunal held it was not appropriate to strike out the claim at that stage, but issued an unless order requiring the claimant to provide the comparator and the acts or omissions relied on by 25 January 2019. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(a) no reasonable prospect of success
- Rule 37(1)(b) scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious conduct
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.