Case 4107395/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Craig Stewart v SSE Generation Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4107395/2020
- Decision date
- 10 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge McManus
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Craig Stewart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal treated the ET1, the Agenda responses and the Answers to the Order as setting out claims of ordinary unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, and it allowed the ET1 to be amended in terms of the Answers. It accepted that the claimant relied on chronic anxiety and depression, that the respondent accepted disability status for the material period, and that the pleaded case could be read as alleging a continuing course of events running from the April 2020 fact-finding investigation through the appeal decision dated 15 September 2020.
On limitation, the tribunal held that the disability discrimination complaints were not time-barred under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. It found that, even if the last act relied on was dismissal on 22 July 2020, the claim was presented within time after ACAS early conciliation, and it accepted that the claimant had at least an arguable basis for saying the events formed a continuing course of conduct. It also noted that the claimant had used the ET1, the Agenda and the later particulars to give fair notice of the case the respondent had to meet.
The tribunal struck out the section 27 victimisation claim because the act relied on, raising safety concerns using a safety licence, was not a protected act for the purposes of that provision. It did not strike out the section 13, 15, 19, 20/21 or 26 disability discrimination claims. Instead, it directed the claimant to provide further answers by 5 July 2021 if he wished to pursue the section 15 and section 19 claims, because the alleged something arising in consequence of disability and the alleged PCP were not yet clearly identified.
The section 20/21 reasonable adjustments claim was held to be sufficiently specified in the amended pleading, and the tribunal said it could not be said at that stage to have no reasonable prospect of success. The section 26 harassment claim based on disability was also treated as part of the case proceeding to final hearing. No monetary award was made at this preliminary hearing, and any application for expenses was left to be considered after the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal under s.98 ERA 1996. The tribunal accepted that the ET1 brought this claim, held it was within time, and listed it for final hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 13 direct disability discrimination. The tribunal held the ET1 and later particulars could be read as alleging a continuing course of disability-related treatment ending with the appeal decision, found the claim not time-barred, and allowed it to proceed. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 discrimination arising from disability. The tribunal did not strike the claim out, but directed the claimant to answer further questions by 5 July 2021 if he wished to pursue it. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 19 indirect disability discrimination. The tribunal said the pleaded PCP was unclear, directed further particulars by 5 July 2021, and left the claim to proceed subject to that clarification. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Sections 20 and 21 reasonable adjustments. The tribunal allowed the amendment, held the claim was not time-barred, and considered that it had a reasonable prospect of success. | Other | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Section 26 harassment based on disability. The tribunal accepted the ET1 brought such a claim and allowed it to proceed; it said there was no ET1 claim based on marriage and civil partnership. |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- Ladbrokes Racing Ltd v Traynor
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules 2013
- Mechkarov v Citibank
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Ahir v British Airways plc
- Apelogun-Gabriels v London Borough of Lambeth
- E v X, L & Z
- Croke v Leeds City Council
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.