Claimant v Advocate General for Scotland Representing the MoD and Advocate General for Scotland Representing the Cabinet Office — 2022

At a preliminary hearing on 18 August 2022, the tribunal considered the second respondent's application to strike out the claim against the Cabinet Office under rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The claimant, appearing in person, argued that the Cabinet Office was a valid respondent because it is the corporate headquarters of the civil service, has oversight of departments, and controls or approves spending in areas including learning and development. The second respondent submitted that the claimant had not alleged any discriminatory act by it and that, even if the claimant proved his pleaded facts, any complained-of conduct would have been that of the first respondent, the MOD.

The tribunal accepted that strike out is a high hurdle and said discrimination claims are usually taken at their highest. It held that the claimant's written case did not identify any discriminatory act done to him by the second respondent, did not specify any Equality Act provision that could make that respondent liable, and was instead directed at general disagreement with civil service policy. The tribunal also noted that possible public sector equality duty arguments were outside its jurisdiction. It therefore struck out the claim against the second respondent for having no reasonable prospect of success, while stating that the claim would proceed against the first respondent.