Case 4104542/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Abdolreza Ahari v NHS Education for Scotland and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 4104542/2018
- Decision date
- 20 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Abdolreza Ahari
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on 14 August 2019 concerning the remaining Equality Act 2010 allegations against NHS Education for Scotland and Dr Wilson arising from Dr Wilson's conduct in 2018. The tribunal noted that earlier allegations had already been disposed of as res judicata and/or out of time in the reserved judgment sent to the parties on 15 April 2019, leaving only allegations dated 28 March 2018 and 21 October 2018. The respondents applied to strike out the remaining claims on the basis that Dr Wilson was not, at the material time, an employee or agent of NES.
After hearing evidence from Dr Wilson, Professor McLellan and Dr Ahari, and applying the caution required when considering strike-out in discrimination cases, the tribunal accepted Dr Wilson's evidence, corroborated by Professor McLellan, that his agency role with NES had ended in 2005. It rejected Dr Ahari's reliance on the speciality advisor contract, a 2005 website printout, Dr Wilson's involvement with the West of Scotland Society for Anaesthetics, hearsay evidence about exclusion from Society meetings, and speculation about Dr Wilson's retirement date, finding that none of those matters showed that Dr Wilson was acting for NES in 2018.
The tribunal held that Dr Wilson was neither an employee nor an agent of NES on the relevant dates in 2018. It therefore concluded that NES could not be vicariously liable under section 109 of the Equality Act 2010 and that Dr Wilson could not be personally liable under section 110. The remaining Equality Act claims were struck out under rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal also ordered Dr Ahari to pay £2,500 in expenses to NES under rule 76(1)(b), taking account of the lack of reasonable prospects and Dr Ahari's stated means.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The remaining Equality Act race discrimination allegations were struck out under rule 37(1)(a) after the tribunal found Dr Wilson was neither an employee nor an agent of NES on the relevant 2018 dates. The judgment did not split the strike-out by individual allegation or respondent, but disposed of the remaining claims on the same s.109/s.110 point. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The remaining Equality Act victimisation allegations were struck out under rule 37(1)(a) after the tribunal found Dr Wilson was neither an employee nor an agent of NES on the relevant 2018 dates. The judgment did not split the strike-out by individual allegation or respondent, but disposed of the remaining claims on the same s.109/s.110 point. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- sections 109 and 110 Equality Act 2010
- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 76(1)(b) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students' Union
- Mechkarov v Citibank NA
- Eastman v Tesco Stores Ltd
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- A v B and C
- ABN AMRO Management Services Ltd v Hogben
- Community Law Clinics Solicitors Ltd & Ors v Methuen
- Hawkins v Atex Group 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.
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.