Case 4109429/2021 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4109429/2021 (V) Held on October 2021 Employment Judge J M Hendry Miss Y Fraser v Not Present Highland Council — 2021
- Case reference
- 4109429/2021
- Decision date
- 14 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Judge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4109429/2021 (V) Held on October 2021 Employment Judge J M Hendry Miss Y Fraser
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's strike-out application, held in the claimant's absence after her postponement request was refused. The tribunal proceeded under Rule 47, having taken account of the history of listing, the claimant's availability form, her late request to move the hearing, and the absence of any good reason for postponement.
The age and sex discrimination claims were struck out under the strike-out jurisdiction because the pleadings did not identify primary facts from which discrimination could properly be inferred. The tribunal held that a difference in treatment, without more, was not enough, and relied on Madarassy v Nomura International Plc in concluding that there was no pleaded "something more" to support either discrimination claim. It treated the case as one of the rare instances in which strike-out of discrimination claims was appropriate.
The remaining dismissal allegations were not struck out. The tribunal noted that the claimant lacked the two years' service needed for ordinary unfair dismissal, but her case referred to health and safety concerns, protected disclosures, and possible reliance on s.100 or s.103A ERA 1996. Although the pleading was unclear, the tribunal was not satisfied that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success at that stage. It ordered Better and Further Particulars within 14 days, including clarification of the statutory basis and the alleged disclosures, and said it would then consider any deposit order if still pursued.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal found no primary facts from which an inference of age discrimination could be drawn and held the pleadings did not go beyond a bare difference in treatment. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | Struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal held there was no pleaded basis connecting the alleged treatment to sex discrimination and applied the same reasoning as for the age claim. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Not struck out at this stage. The tribunal noted the claimant did not have two years' service for ordinary unfair dismissal, but was not prepared to find there was no reasonable prospect of success on any automatic unfair dismissal basis under s.100 or s.103A ERA 1996. Better and Further Particulars were ordered within 14 days. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- Rule 37 strike-out
- Rule 39 deposit order
- no reasonable prospect of success
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- Balls v Downham Market High School & College
- Chandhok & others v Tirkey
- Attorney General v Barker
- Doran v Department of Work and Pensions
- Van Rensburg v The Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
- Wright v Nipponkoa Insurance (Europe) Ltd
- Blackbay Ventures Ltd T/A Chemistree v Gahir
- s.100 ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
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.