Case 4109518/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Brian Gourlay v Gmb — 2018
- Case reference
- 4109518/2018
- Decision date
- 21 December 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McPherson
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Brian Gourlay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Brian Gourlay brought a disability discrimination claim against GMB under sections 15, 26 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010. The respondent applied to strike out the claim under Rule 37, and in the alternative sought a deposit order. The tribunal recorded that the respondent accepted Mr Gourlay was disabled by reason of MS and accepted it was aware of that disability at the material times. The claimant told the tribunal that the essence of his case was the cease and desist letter dated 1 February 2018, while the earlier 2015 claim between the same parties, which had been struck out in 2016, formed part of the background to the res judicata argument.
The tribunal held that the claim as pleaded did not disclose a prima facie case of discrimination and had no reasonable prospect of success. It found that Mr Gourlay failed to connect the alleged acts and omissions of GMB with his disability, or with anything arising from it, and said there were no pleaded facts from which the required causal link could reasonably be inferred. It also accepted the respondent's position that the pleaded case was scandalous or vexatious and that the claimant's attempt to characterise the matter as a continuing discriminatory state of affairs did not displace the respondents' objections.
The tribunal further held that the claim was barred insofar as it sought to re-litigate matters already raised, or capable of being raised, in the earlier proceedings, and that acts before 27 January 2018 were time barred. It described the relevant law as including Rule 37 strike out, the caution in discrimination cases, res judicata and Henderson v Henderson abuse of process, and the time limit under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. Having struck out the whole claim, the tribunal said it was unnecessary to make a deposit order, but recorded that it would have ordered £1,000 if the claim had not been struck out. The claimant's application to amend and his application to strike out the ET3 response did not proceed further.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim under s.15 Equality Act 2010; struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no prima facie case/no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal also relied on res judicata, abuse of process, and time bar for acts before 27 January 2018. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Claim under s.26 Equality Act 2010; struck out with the whole claim. The tribunal found the pleaded case did not disclose a causal link to disability and treated the claim as barred for earlier matters and repetitive of the 2015 proceedings. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Claim under s.27 Equality Act 2010; struck out with the whole claim. No separate merits determination was made because the tribunal struck out the case as a whole under Rule 37. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Rule 37(1)(a) no reasonable prospects of success
- Rule 37(1)(b) scandalous or vexatious
- res judicata
- Henderson v Henderson abuse of process
- s.123 Equality Act 2010 time bar
- Rule 39 little reasonable prospects of success
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.