Claimant v University of Edinburgh — 2023

The respondent applied under Rule 37 to strike out the claimant's claims on the grounds that they had no reasonable prospect of success, that the proceedings had been conducted unreasonably, and that the claimant had failed to comply with tribunal orders. The tribunal declined to determine any time-bar issue at this hearing because no notice had been given that time-bar would be addressed and, on the tribunal's analysis, the claimant could not have given evidence from India without the necessary permissions.

On the substance of the pleaded claims, the tribunal treated the case as including an automatic unfair dismissal allegation based on an alleged protected disclosure in the grievance dated 10 February 2022, indirect discrimination on the grounds of race, victimisation, harassment on grounds of race, and direct race discrimination. It held that the grievance could potentially amount to a protected disclosure because it was received before the dismissal decision, but the respondent's case that the dismissing officer had not seen it could not be resolved without evidence. For indirect discrimination, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had identified probation guidance and grade 6 to 10 employment conditions as possible PCPs, but said the pleaded disadvantage was unclear and not properly tied to people sharing the claimant's Indian race and nationality. For victimisation, the tribunal said some of the matters relied on might be protected acts, but others were not, and the alleged detriments were not coherently linked to those acts. It also held that the harassment claim had not been properly specified, and that the direct discrimination claim lacked a comparator and a clear explanation of why the dismissal process or decision was said to be because of race.

The tribunal did not accept that the claimant's conduct was unreasonable or that he had failed to comply with orders. It considered that he had tried to answer the orders, albeit without legal training and with limited success in a complex area of law. Strike-out was refused at this stage, but the tribunal said the claims needed to be narrowed and further specified before any merits hearing, and that only those allegations properly understood from the existing claim could proceed subject to any time-bar or amendment arguments.