Case 4105779/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ahsan Khan v The Scottish Housing Regulator — 2017
- Case reference
- 4105779/2016
- Decision date
- 11 September 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Claire McManus
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ahsan Khan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Ahsan Khan applied in July 2016 for inclusion on the Scottish Housing Regulator's selection list of individuals considered suitable to act as Statutory Manager. The tribunal held that the exercise of assessing applicants for that list fell within section 50 of the Equality Act 2010, because it was part of the arrangements for deciding to whom to offer an appointment to public office. The tribunal took a broad view of the statutory wording, treating the selection list as an important preliminary stage in the appointment process.
On the direct discrimination claim, the tribunal held that the relevant act was the publication of the successful selection list on 28 September 2016. It found that the claim was therefore within time, and that the ACAS early conciliation period extended the limitation period so that the ET1 presented on 28 December 2016 was in time. The direct discrimination claim was allowed to proceed; the tribunal did not determine the merits of the allegation at this hearing.
The tribunal held that the indirect discrimination claim and the victimisation claim crystallised on 29 July 2016, when the Claimant's application was not successful at first sift. On that basis the three-month time limit expired on 28 October 2016, before ACAS early conciliation began on 8 November 2016. It refused to extend time on the just and equitable basis after considering the length and reasons for delay, the Claimant's decision to prioritise personal matters, the absence of professional advice, the effect on evidence, and the prejudice to both parties.
The Claimant also applied to strike out the Respondent's response on the basis of an earlier inaccuracy about the number of appointments from the selection list. The tribunal refused that application. It held that the position had been clarified, that the inaccuracy caused no prejudice to the Claimant's case, and that a fair hearing remained possible.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Preliminary ruling only. The tribunal held that section 50 of the Equality Act 2010 applied to the Respondent's assessment exercise and that the direct discrimination claim was in time because the cause of action crystallised when the selection list was published on 28 September 2016; the merits of the allegation were not determined. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed as out of time. The tribunal held that the indirect discrimination claim crystallised on 29 July 2016 when the Claimant's application was rejected at first sift, the ACAS early conciliation notification on 8 November 2016 was after expiry of the three-month period on 28 October 2016, and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed as out of time. The tribunal held that the victimisation claim crystallised on 29 July 2016 when the first-sift decision was made, the claim was not brought within the three-month period ending 28 October 2016, and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Equality Act 2010 section 50
- Equality Act 2010 section 123
- Equality Act 2010 section 140B
- Clarke v Hampshire Electro-plating Co Ltd
- Virdi v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Mensah v Royal College of Midwives
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Rule 37(1)(b) and (e) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.