Case 4105209/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jason Conry v Represented by: Mr R Lawson - Solicitor Royal Mail Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 4105209/2018
- Decision date
- 2 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jason Conry
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's application to strike out, or alternatively to obtain a deposit order for, Mr Conry's disability discrimination complaints under sections 15, 19 and 20 of the Equality Act 2010. The respondent accepted that he was a disabled person at the relevant time, but argued that the psychiatric evidence was too speculative to support a finding that his decision-making on 21 October 2017 was affected by his disability.
The tribunal applied rule 37(1)(a) and rule 39 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, and had regard to the Mechkarov guidance on strike out in discrimination cases. It held that this was not one of the clearest cases for strike out because the claimant's evidence, together with other witness evidence and the psychiatric report, raised core disputed facts that should not be resolved without oral evidence. The respondent's strike-out and deposit applications were both refused.
The judgment records that the case should proceed to a hearing to determine the complaints of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. No merits finding or monetary award was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The respondent's applications to strike out the complaints under sections 15, 19 and 20 of the Equality Act and for a deposit order were refused; the merits were left for a later hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- rule 39 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- Mechkarov v Citibank UKEAT/41/16 strike-out guidance
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.