Case 4102981/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v The AA — 2021
- Case reference
- 4102981/2020
- Decision date
- 17 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Gall DR
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing dealt with on written submissions only. The claimant had brought claims against AA PLC for unfair dismissal and discrimination, while the respondents said the correct employer was Automobile Association Developments Limited (AADL). The tribunal accepted that the claimant worked in the AA group, but found on the documents and submissions before it that his employer was AADL, not AA PLC.
The tribunal therefore substituted AADL as the respondent under Rule 34. It held that no fresh ACAS Early Conciliation certificate was required in relation to AADL, relying on Mist v Derby Community Health Services NHS Trust. It also referred to the amendment principles in Selkent Bus Co Limited v Moore. The tribunal said AA PLC should not remain a respondent because it was not the claimant's employer and could not be liable on the basis advanced.
No evidence was heard and the tribunal said there were no facts found in the case for that reason. It recorded that the case would continue against AADL. The question whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 was left unresolved and was to be clarified by the parties, with the possibility of a further case management hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held that Automobile Association Developments Limited, not AA PLC, was the claimant's employer and substituted AADL as respondent. No merits determination on unfair dismissal was made. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal substituted AADL as respondent and did not determine the substance of the Equality Act claim. It noted that whether the claimant was disabled within the Equality Act 2010 still had to be resolved at a later stage. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 34
- Selkent Bus Co Limited v Moore 1996 ICR 836
- Mist v Derby Community Health Services NHS Trust 2016 ICR 543
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.