Case 4107351/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D McGhee v Represented by Mr C Howie Solicitor Aberdeen City Council — 2021
- Case reference
- 4107351/2019
- Decision date
- 4 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D McGhee
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 25 February 2021 before Employment Judge A Kemp sitting alone, the tribunal considered the claimant's application to amend an existing constructive unfair dismissal claim so as to add disability discrimination complaints under sections 15 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010. The background recorded that the claimant had signed a Removal with Consent Order on 18 January 2019, which meant the respondent could not employ him as a teacher, and that he resigned in February 2019 and later presented an ET1 limited to constructive dismissal.
Applying the amendment authorities, including Selkent and the later cases cited in the reasons, the tribunal held that the proposed amendment was in substance a new claim with no real causative link to the pleaded constructive dismissal case. It identified several new areas of factual inquiry, including the respondent's knowledge of disability, whether any disadvantage arose from disability, whether any PCP was applied, whether objective justification was available, and what reasonable adjustments might have been required.
The tribunal also held that the amendment was materially out of time, being more than 19 months outside the primary limitation period on the claimant's own case, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. It attached weight to the passage of time, the retirement of Mr Innes, the missing Dr Clark letter, the additional cost and delay, and the prejudice to the respondent. It noted that the claimant was represented when the ET1 was presented and had referred to mental health matters, but had not pleaded disability discrimination.
The application to amend was refused. The judgment did not determine the merits of the original constructive unfair dismissal claim, which remained a live case management issue, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend his claim to add disability discrimination complaints under sections 15 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010. This was a procedural decision and not a final determination of liability on any discrimination claim. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- Selkent Bus Company v Moore [1996] ICR 836
- Ali v Office for National Statistics [2005] IRLR 201
- Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster Ltd [2014] ICR 204
- Housing Corporation v Bryant [1999] ICR 123
- Barclays Bank plc v Kapur [1989] IRLR 387
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2003] IRLR 96
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre [2003] IRLR 434
- Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston [2009] EWCA Civ 1298
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Rathakrishnan v Pizza Express (Restaurants) Ltd [2016] IRLR 278
- Gallilee v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2018] ICR 634
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Rule 29 case management orders
- Rule 2 overriding objective
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.