Case 4103523/2022 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4103523/2022 (P)5 Held at Aberdeen on February 2023 Employment Judge J M Hendry Mr M MacDonald v Represented by Mrs J Coutts-MacDonald,15 Wife IKM Testing UK Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 4103523/2022
- Decision date
- 8 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4103523/2022 (P)5 Held at Aberdeen on February 2023 Employment Judge J M Hendry Mr M MacDonald
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The hearing on 17 February 2023 concerned the respondent's application to strike out the case after the claimant did not make himself available for the scheduled December 2022 hearing on disability status. The claimant was represented by his wife throughout, and the tribunal recorded that she had sought a postponement because of her own health difficulties while the claimant was working in Amsterdam and did not return in time for the hearing.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant and his wife had been under stress, but found it should have been clear that the claimant would have to attend and give evidence about his disability if disability status was not accepted. It held that the failure to make himself available for the arranged hearing was unreasonable for the purposes of Rule 37, and that he should have been candid with the tribunal and sought a postponement rather than take work that prevented attendance.
Applying Rule 37 and the overriding objective, and referring to authorities including Balls v Downham Market High School & College, Chandhok v Tirkey, Attorney General v Barker, Smith v Tesco Stores Ltd, Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James, Arrow Nominees Inc v Blackledge, and Emuemukoro v Croma Vigilant (Scotland) Ltd, the tribunal concluded that strike out was a draconian step and that a fair hearing remained possible. It treated a strike out as disproportionate in the circumstances, noted that discrimination claims should not be struck out except in very clear cases, and said the appropriate lesser course was for the respondent to apply for expenses if so advised.
The respondent's application for strike out was refused. The tribunal indicated that listing letters would be issued for a hearing on disability status or, if that point was conceded, for a full merits hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal did not determine the unfair dismissal claim on the merits. It refused the respondent's strike-out application and listed the case for a disability-status hearing or, if that was conceded, a full merits hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal did not determine the disability discrimination claim on the merits. It refused the respondent's strike-out application and directed that listing letters issue for a disability-status hearing or, if conceded, a full merits hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Rule 37 strike out
- Overriding objective
- Balls v Downham Market High School & College
- Chandhok & others v Tirkey
- Attorney General v Barker
- Smith v Tesco Stores Ltd
- Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James
- Arrow Nominees Inc v Blackledge
- Emuemukoro v Croma Vigilant (Scotland) Ltd
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.