Case 4106034/2019 · Employment Tribunal

ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4106034/2019 (V) Preliminary Hearing by Cloud Video Platform on January 2021 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Miss Ashleigh Reid v Sainsbury’s Bank — 2021

Case reference: 4106034/2019
Decision date: 26 January 2021
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge Meiklejohn

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4106034/2019 (V) Preliminary Hearing by Cloud Video Platform on January 2021 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Miss Ashleigh Reid

Respondent

Sainsbury’s Bank

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Employment Judge M A Macleod heard a preliminary hearing by CVP on 11 January 2021 to decide whether Miss Reid had materially complied with an unless order dated 12 December 2019. The order required GP medical records for the relevant period, GP or specialist reports, details of the impact of the claimant's conditions, and information about how those conditions affected the main duties of her employment. The respondent applied under Rule 38(1) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 to have the proceedings dismissed if there had been material non-compliance.

The respondent said the claimant had not produced the full GP records and had not set out the main duties of her job or explained how each condition affected them. Ms Wheeler relied on Scottish Ambulance Service v Laing and Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Abraham, and submitted that partial compliance was not enough. The claimant said she had provided extracts from her medical records, a GP report and handwritten notes, and that her former solicitor had withdrawn before the order; she also said there had been difficulty obtaining records during the pandemic.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant's response to paragraph 5 of the order was incomplete and very general, and found that she knew by January 2020 that the full GP records had not been passed to the respondent. Even so, it held that she had produced substantial medical material, had "just" complied with paragraph 1, and had partially complied with paragraph 5. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the shortcomings were not materially serious enough to justify dismissing the proceedings.

The respondent's application to dismiss was therefore refused and the claimant's claims were allowed to proceed. The tribunal did not decide the merits of the unfair dismissal, disability discrimination or pay claim, and noted that whether the claimant meets the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010 would need to be determined at a later hearing. No monetary award was made.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Procedural judgment only: the tribunal refused the respondent's Rule 38 application to dismiss for non-compliance with the unless order, so this claim was allowed to proceed. No merits determination was made.	Other	—	—
Disability discrimination	Procedural judgment only: the tribunal refused the respondent's Rule 38 application to dismiss for non-compliance with the unless order, so this claim was allowed to proceed. No merits determination was made, and the tribunal said disability status would be considered later.	Other	Disability	—
Breach of contract	Procedural judgment only: the tribunal refused the respondent's Rule 38 application to dismiss for non-compliance with the unless order, so this claim was allowed to proceed. No merits determination was made.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.