Case 4104205/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Pettigrew v University of the West of Scotland — 2021
- Case reference
- 4104205/2020
- Decision date
- 29 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Young
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Pettigrew
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Alistair Pettigrew, brought a direct age discrimination claim against the University of the West of Scotland arising from refusal of access to the respondent's Voluntary Severance Scheme and his later redundancy from the post of Senior Manager, Global Research, Excellence and Partnerships. He was 58 when his employment ended on 15 November 2019. The respondent accepted that refusal of voluntary severance was less favourable treatment, but said the age criterion was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This hearing was limited to whether the claim, presented on 6 August 2020, was out of time and whether time should be extended under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal found that the claimant applied for voluntary severance on 6 August 2019 and was told on 15 August 2019 that he was not eligible. It also found that the age discrimination issue was raised again in the redundancy appeal, and that the appeal outcome letter of 12 February 2020 expressly dealt with the allegation that he had been denied severance on the basis of age. On that basis, the judge held that the complaint could be treated either as a continuing act or as a fresh act on reconsideration at appeal, so the most recent act complained of was the refusal intimated on 12 February 2020.
In deciding that it was just and equitable to extend time, the tribunal placed weight on the claimant's reliance on advice from his UCU representative, Dr Christopher O'Donnell, who had notified ACAS and corresponded with the claimant about the claim. The judge accepted that the claimant did not receive the early conciliation certificate when it was first emailed to Dr O'Donnell, and that the advice given to the claimant about ET deadlines was incorrect. The tribunal also found that the respondent would not be materially prejudiced by the delay, that the claimant acted within a reasonable time once he understood he needed to lodge the claim himself, and that the claim should proceed to a full merits hearing on 6, 7 and 8 April 2021.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal found it was just and equitable to extend time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, so the age discrimination claim was allowed to proceed to a full merits hearing. | Other | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Barclays Bank Plc v Kapur
- Sougrin v Haringey Health Authority
- Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority
- Aziz v FDA
- Cast v Croydon College
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Abertawe Bro Morganneeg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Hawkins v Ball
- Chohan v Derby Law Centre
- Wright v Wolverhampton City Council
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.
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.