Case 4105471/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Stephanie Asgill v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 4105471/2020
- Decision date
- 17 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms Stephanie Asgill
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on jurisdiction and strike-out, not a merits determination. The claimant brought discrimination and unfair dismissal claims arising from a series of Shell contracts. The tribunal heard evidence only so far as needed to decide whether claims against the first, second and third respondents should proceed, and it made findings for that limited purpose only.
The tribunal accepted that the Shell group operated through separate legal entities with group-wide policies and delegated authority, but it held that each company retained corporate separateness. It found that the claimant was employed by SEPIL from 1 August 2017 until 1 October 2020, and by Shell UK Ltd from 1 October 2020. It rejected the contention that RDS was the claimant's employer or that there was a relevant principal-and-agent relationship which would make RDS liable under sections 109 and 110 of the Equality Act 2010.
On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claim against the first respondent for no reasonable prospects of success under Rule 37(1)(a), and it also struck out the claim against the second respondent in respect of acts said to have occurred before 1 October 2020. It held that clause 23 of the SEPIL contract did not create a basis for deeming Shell UK Ltd liable for SEPIL's acts. The claimant's indirect discrimination allegation relating to maternity leave was recorded as no longer insisted upon.
The tribunal also held that it had no jurisdiction to hear a claim against SEPIL. It found SEPIL was incorporated in Bermuda and operated from Dubai, had not submitted to the tribunal's jurisdiction, and could not be brought within the Brussels Regulation arguments advanced by the claimant. In the alternative territorial analysis, it found that the claimant worked for SEPIL in the UAE and Iraq rather than in Great Britain, so the necessary connection with UK employment law was not shown on the facts before it. The claim against the second respondent in respect of acts said to have taken place after 1 October 2020 was left to proceed to a further preliminary hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment dealt with pregnancy and maternity-related allegations at a preliminary strike-out/jurisdiction hearing rather than at a merits hearing. The tribunal struck out the pre-1 October 2020 allegations against the first respondent and the second respondent for no reasonable prospects, held there was no jurisdiction over the third respondent, and recorded that the indirect discrimination allegation on maternity leave was no longer insisted upon. The remaining allegations against the second respondent after 1 October 2020 were allowed to proceed. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The sex discrimination allegations were addressed only for preliminary jurisdiction and strike-out purposes. The tribunal dismissed the first respondent claim and the second respondent claim for acts said to have occurred before 1 October 2020 under Rule 37(1)(a), held it had no jurisdiction over the third respondent, and left the post-1 October 2020 allegations against the second respondent to proceed. | Other | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The ET1 also pleaded detriments said to follow from prior protected acts. The judgment did not make merits findings on those allegations; instead it determined the scope of the preliminary strike-out and jurisdiction issues, dismissing the first respondent claim and the second respondent claim for pre-1 October 2020 acts, and allowing the later second respondent allegations to continue. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim included an unfair dismissal complaint, but this judgment did not finally determine it on the merits. The tribunal considered territorial scope arguments under the ERA 1996 framework and held the claimant's SEPIL employment lacked the necessary connection with Great Britain, while the post-1 October 2020 claims against Shell UK Ltd were left to proceed. |
Legal tests applied
11 references- Rule 37(1)(a) no reasonable prospects
- Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College
- s.109 Equality Act 2010
- ss.111-112 Equality Act 2010
- Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd
- Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing
- Weber v Universal Ogden Services
- Recast Brussels Regulations arts 20-23
- Jackson v Ghost Ltd
- Bleuse v MBT Transport 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.