Case 4106304/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Scott Prior v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 4106304/2023
- Decision date
- 14 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Scott Prior
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal complaint was withdrawn and dismissed by consent because the claimant did not have sufficient qualifying service to bring it.
The Tribunal determined the preliminary issue of disability status for the Equality Act claims. It found that the claimant was a disabled person for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 in February or March 2023, but not after that period. The judgment states that the Equality Act claims will therefore be based on that past disability.
Oral reasons were given at the end of the hearing in the presence of the parties, and neither side requested written reasons.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | By consent, the complaint of unfair dismissal was withdrawn and dismissed because the claimant lacked sufficient qualifying service to bring it. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment decided a preliminary issue on disability status only. It found the claimant was a disabled person for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 in February or March 2023, but not later than that; liability for the Equality Act claims was not determined in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 6 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.