Case 4103399/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Fitzpatrick v The Scottish Ministers — 2021
- Case reference
- 4103399/2020
- Decision date
- 17 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Fitzpatrick
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing judgment on the claimant's application to amend existing claims for unfair dismissal and breach of contract. The tribunal recorded that the claimant sought to add a section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 claim, a procedural unfairness amendment, and Equality Act 2010 claims for direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation relying on sex, age, race, religion or belief and disability.
The tribunal held that the procedural unfairness point was already within the existing unfair dismissal claim and did not require amendment. It refused permission to add the Equality Act claims, finding that they were entirely new claims with little or no causative link to the original claim form, lacked adequate specification, were out of time unless a just and equitable extension was granted, and would cause material prejudice and likely delay if allowed.
The tribunal allowed the section 103A amendment only in limited part. It permitted the claimant to rely on an email sent by her trade union representative on 17 September 2010 and an email allegedly sent in February 2011 about the Chair Incident, provided the latter was produced. It refused permission to rely on the other alleged disclosures because they were historic or insufficiently specified and would be difficult for the respondent to investigate without undue hardship and prejudice. No substantive liability or remedy was determined.
Claims and outcomes
10 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal allowed the claimant's amendment only to add a section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 claim based on two alleged written protected disclosures: an email from Mr Clark to Ms McCloy dated 17 September 2010, and an email allegedly sent to Mr Cunningham in February 2011 if produced. Other alleged disclosures were not permitted. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The existing unfair dismissal claim was not determined. The tribunal held that the claimant's proposed amendment about procedural unfairness was unnecessary because it was already within the terms of the existing claim. | Other | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal refused permission to amend to add Equality Act 2010 discrimination claims. This was a case management decision on amendment, time limits, notice, prejudice and prospects, not a merits determination. | Other | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal refused permission to amend to add Equality Act 2010 discrimination claims. This was a case management decision on amendment, time limits, notice, prejudice and prospects, not a merits determination. | Other | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal refused permission to amend to add Equality Act 2010 discrimination claims. This was a case management decision on amendment, time limits, notice, prejudice and prospects, not a merits determination. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- overriding objective
- Selkent principles
- balance of injustice and hardship
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- Pruzhanskaya v International Trade & Exhibitors (JV) Ltd
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of time
- causative link
- Housing Corporation v Bryant
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996
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.