Case 4103605/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Loading page content.
TopCase 4103605/2022 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4103605/2022 Preliminary Hearing Held at Edinburgh on April 2023 Employment Judge: M A Macleod
The claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing on 26 April 2023. The tribunal considered Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules 2013, but decided to proceed in his absence rather than dismiss the case immediately for non-attendance. It then heard the respondents' application for strike out under Rule 37(1)(a) and (b).
The tribunal found that the claimant's further and better particulars did not give fair notice of the case. It said the whistleblowing detriment claim under s47B ERA 1996 did not identify the detriments relied on; the disability discrimination claims under ss13, 15 and 20/21 EqA 2010 were confused and did not clearly identify the unfavourable treatment or any PCP; and the direct, indirect, harassment and victimisation complaints were pleaded by repeating the same answers across disability, age, race, religion and sex without explaining how each characteristic was engaged.
The tribunal also held that the breach of contract complaint about mutual dignity, respect and trust and the modern slavery complaint, including the allegation about working at other nurseries, had already been ruled out in case 4101091/2022 and were outside its jurisdiction. The unlawful deduction claim had also been pursued in that earlier case, and the tribunal held that it could not competently proceed against the second and third respondents as individuals. Taking the repetition of claims already determined, the failure to attend, and the lack of clear specification together, the tribunal concluded that a fair trial was no longer possible and struck out the claims in their entirety under Rule 37(1)(a) and (b).
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim under s47B ERA 1996. The tribunal held that the claimant did not specify which detriments were said to follow from protected disclosures. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim under s15 EqA 2010. The alleged unfavourable treatment was described in very general terms and the tribunal said it was not clear what act was complained of. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim under ss20 and 21 EqA 2010. The tribunal said no workable provision, criterion or practice was identified and the matters relied on were framed as actions the claimant regarded as unfair. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination claim under s13 EqA 2010. The tribunal found the pleading confused and did not identify a clear act of less favourable treatment on grounds of disability. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct discrimination claim under s13 EqA 2010. The claimant applied the same answers across protected characteristics without explaining how age was engaged. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination claim under s13 EqA 2010. The claimant applied the same answers across protected characteristics without explaining how race was engaged. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct discrimination claim under s13 EqA 2010. The claimant applied the same answers across protected characteristics without explaining how religion or belief was engaged. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct discrimination claim under s13 EqA 2010. The claimant applied the same answers across protected characteristics without explaining how sex was engaged. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect discrimination claim. The tribunal said the claimant simply recycled his direct discrimination answers and did not identify a clear PCP or disability link. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Age discrimination | Indirect discrimination claim. The tribunal said the claimant simply recycled his direct discrimination answers and did not identify a clear PCP or age link. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Indirect discrimination claim. The tribunal said the claimant simply recycled his direct discrimination answers and did not identify a clear PCP or race link. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Indirect discrimination claim. The tribunal said the claimant simply recycled his direct discrimination answers and did not identify a clear PCP or religion or belief link. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Sex discrimination | Indirect discrimination claim. The tribunal said the claimant simply recycled his direct discrimination answers and did not identify a clear PCP or sex link. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claim under s26 EqA 2010. The tribunal said the same answers were repeated across characteristics and no clear link to disability was identified. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claim under s26 EqA 2010. The tribunal said the same answers were repeated across characteristics and no clear link to age was identified. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claim under s26 EqA 2010. The tribunal said the same answers were repeated across characteristics and no clear link to race was identified. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claim under s26 EqA 2010. The tribunal said the same answers were repeated across characteristics and no clear link to religion or belief was identified. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claim under s26 EqA 2010. The tribunal said the same answers were repeated across characteristics and no clear link to sex was identified. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Claim under s27 EqA 2010. The tribunal said the claimant did not clearly define the protected act or acts or the detriment relied on. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Complaint of breaches of rights to mutual dignity, respect and trust under contract of employment legislation (ERA 1996). The tribunal held that it was outwith jurisdiction and had already been ruled out in case 4101091/2022. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Modern slavery complaint, including the allegation about being asked to work at other nurseries and schools. The tribunal held that it had already been ruled out in case 4101091/2022 and was outwith jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unlawful deduction or reduction of monthly wages linked to sickness leave. The tribunal held that it had already been determined in case 4101091/2022 and could not competently proceed against the second and third respondents, who were not employers. | Struck out | — | — |
The 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.
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.