Case 4106027/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Lamond v The Scottish Ministers — 2019
- Case reference
- 4106027/2019
- Decision date
- 13 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sangster
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Lamond
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing about the scope of the claim and proposed amendments. The Tribunal held that the original claim already included ordinary unfair dismissal, disability discrimination claims concerning dismissal, and a failure to make reasonable adjustments claim about part-time working. Those claims were allowed to proceed to a final hearing.
The Tribunal confirmed that the claimant's holiday pay complaint was a claim for unauthorised deductions from wages under section 13 ERA. Because the earlier amendment had been granted subject only to any time bar issue, and the respondent did not maintain a time bar objection, that claim was also allowed to proceed.
The Tribunal refused permission to add the further disability discrimination and harassment allegations in the Scott Schedule. It found these were new claims, most arose in 2017 or by March 2018, and no satisfactory explanation had been given for not bringing them sooner. The Tribunal considered that delay would affect the cogency of evidence and that some allegations were not specified in sufficient detail to give fair notice. The amendment to add an automatically unfair dismissal claim under section 100(1)(a) or (c) ERA was granted because it was intimated within the normal time limit and overlapped with the existing unfair dismissal claim.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The ordinary unfair dismissal claim under section 98 ERA was identified as part of the original claim and was permitted to proceed to a final hearing; merits were not determined. The amendment to add an automatically unfair dismissal claim under section 100(1)(a) or (c) ERA was granted; merits were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claims that dismissal was direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments in relation to part-time working were identified as part of the original claim and were permitted to proceed to a final hearing; merits were not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The application to amend to add further disability discrimination claims, including direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and indirect discrimination allegations listed in the Scott Schedule, was refused. This was a procedural decision on amendment, not a merits determination. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The application to amend to add disability-related harassment allegations listed in the Scott Schedule was refused. This was a procedural decision on amendment, not a merits determination. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore 1996 ICR 836
- Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Limited and another 1974 ICR 650
- Trimble and another v North Lanarkshire Council and another EATS0048/12
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre (2003) EWCA Civ 536
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble (1997) IRLR 336
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 100(1)(a) or (c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123(3)(b) Equality Act 2010
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.