Case 4104761/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Torrie v Of the Strathclyde Law Clinic Eastern Western Motor Group st — 2021
- Case reference
- 4104761/2020
- Decision date
- 2 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Porter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Torrie
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Porter on 22 November 2021 concerning the respondents' application to strike out the claimant's claims under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, Schedule 1. The claimant was Mr D Torrie, and the respondents were Eastern Western Motor Group and Eastern Holdings Ltd.
By judgment dated 23 November 2021, entered in the register on 2 December 2021, the tribunal refused the respondents' strike-out application. The text does not record any findings on the substantive merits of the underlying disability discrimination and unfair dismissal claims, and it contains no remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The respondents' application to strike out this claim under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, Schedule 1, was refused. No substantive merits determination is recorded in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. The respondents' application to strike out this claim under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, Schedule 1, was refused. No substantive merits determination is recorded in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, Schedule 1
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.