Case 4102907/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Connolly-Brown v Edinburgh Council . — 2023
- Case reference
- 4102907/2022
- Decision date
- 12 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge McFatridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Connolly-Brown
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs C Connolly-Brown presented a claim in May 2022 alleging unfair constructive dismissal and disability discrimination. After repeated case management orders and an unless order, Employment Judge McFatridge heard the respondent's strike-out application at an open preliminary hearing on 16 May 2023. No evidence was led.
The tribunal struck out the section 13 direct disability discrimination claim because the pleadings did not identify factual incidents amounting to less favourable treatment by reason of disability and did not give the respondent fair notice of the case to meet. It also struck out the constructive unfair dismissal claim, holding that no repudiatory breach was properly pleaded and that the ET1 described resignation after the claimant's health had deteriorated rather than resignation in response to a pleaded contractual breach.
On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal held that only the allegation relating to mental health training had just and only just identified a PCP and therefore could proceed. The claims about a Wellness Action Plan/Support Plan, a quiet place to work and clarity on work responsibilities were struck out for lack of a pleaded PCP, while the claims about noise cancelling headphones and a specialist chair were treated as time-barred because early conciliation was started more than three months after the relevant adjustments had been implemented. The remaining section 15 discrimination arising from disability claim and the mental health training reasonable-adjustments claim were left to proceed to a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
9 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 | Section 13 direct disability discrimination claim struck out under rule 37(1)(a) and 37(1)(c); the tribunal found no pleaded facts showing less favourable treatment because of disability and no fair notice of a direct discrimination case. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal claim struck out under rule 37(1)(a) and 37(1)(c); the tribunal held no repudiatory breach was properly pleaded and the ET1 said the claimant resigned after her health had deteriorated. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments by not providing a Wellness Action Plan/Support Plan struck out under rule 37(1)(a); the tribunal held no PCP was identified. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments as to a quiet place to work struck out under rule 37(1)(a); the tribunal held no PCP was identified. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments by providing clarity on work responsibilities struck out under rule 37(1)(a); the tribunal held no PCP was identified. |
Legal tests applied
10 references- rule 37(1)(a) no reasonable prospect of success
- rule 37(1)(c) fair trial / fair notice
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Johnson v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council
- Secretary of State for Justice v Prospere
- McCue v Glasgow City Council
- Western Excavating v Sharp
- Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James
- Kaur v Edinburgh City Council
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.