Case 4105347/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C McEleny v Ministry of Defence — 2018
- Case reference
- 4105347/2017
- Decision date
- 25 July 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Frances Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C McEleny
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered as a preliminary issue whether the claimant's belief in Scottish independence and the social democratic values of the SNP could amount to a philosophical belief for the purposes of Section 10 of the Equality Act 2010. The claimant alleged direct discrimination under Section 13, including less favourable treatment said to include suspension of security clearance and constructive dismissal, but the hearing addressed only whether the asserted belief was protected.
The Tribunal found that the claimant's support for the social democratic values of the SNP was a manifestation of his belief in Scottish independence, and that support or active membership of a political party did not of itself amount to a philosophical belief. It was not persuaded that the claimant's support for the SNP, viewed separately, was philosophical in nature.
Applying the Grainger criteria, the Tribunal found that the claimant's belief in Scottish independence was genuinely and deeply held, was not merely an opinion based on current information, concerned weighty and substantial questions of national sovereignty and self-determination, had sufficient cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance, and was worthy of respect in a democratic society. It concluded that belief in Scottish independence amounted to a philosophical belief and could be relied on as a protected characteristic for the purposes of the direct discrimination claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | Preliminary Hearing only. The Tribunal decided that the claimant's belief in Scottish independence amounted to a philosophical belief within Section 10 of the Equality Act 2010 and could be relied on for a direct discrimination claim under Section 13; the merits of the alleged less favourable treatment were not determined. | Other | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Section 10 Equality Act 2010
- Section 13 Equality Act 2010
- Grainger plc & others v Nicholson 2010 ICR 360
- Redfearn v UK
- McClintock v Department of Constitutional Affairs 2008 IRLR 29
- Olivier v Department for Work & Pensions
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.