Case 4110023/2019 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case no 4110023/2019 Held at Edinburgh on January 2020 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Mr Jacob Cohen v Faculty Services Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 4110023/2019
- Decision date
- 20 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Macleod
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case no 4110023/2019 Held at Edinburgh on January 2020 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Mr Jacob Cohen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing on 6 January 2020, the tribunal dealt with jurisdiction over the claimant's breach of contract claim, limitation and strike-out issues on the claimant's direct sex discrimination claim, and the claimant's application to strike out parts of the respondent's response to the unfair dismissal claim. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr D Hay, Advocate.
On the breach of contract claim, the tribunal held that when the respondent invoked its disciplinary policy it was under a contractual obligation to comply with that policy, including the confidentiality provision. However, Article 5(d) of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994 excluded jurisdiction so far as the claim concerned an alleged breach of an obligation of confidence. The tribunal said that this did not necessarily dispose of the whole breach of contract claim and observed that the claimant might seek to amend it as a more ordinary claim that dismissal for gross misconduct itself amounted to breach of contract.
On the sex discrimination claim, the tribunal held that the claimant's suspension on 20 February 2019, followed by investigation, disciplinary hearings and dismissal, was conduct extending over a period for the purposes of section 123 Equality Act 2010, so the claim was not out of time. The tribunal then struck the claim out under Rule 37(1)(a), holding that there was no 'something more' beyond the difference in treatment between the claimant and Ms J Boyd and no factual basis from which sex could be found to be the reason for the treatment complained of.
The tribunal refused the claimant's application to strike out parts of the respondent's response to the unfair dismissal claim. It held that although the response was brief, it set out a statable answer and could not be said to have no reasonable prospect of success. No liability finding or monetary award was made at this stage, and the case was listed for a further case management hearing on 31 March 2020.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that it had jurisdiction except insofar as the claim depended on an alleged breach of an obligation of confidence under the disciplinary procedure. It did not finally dispose of the rest of the breach of contract claim and noted that the claimant might seek to reframe it as a more ordinary dismissal-related breach claim. | Other | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal held that the claim was not time barred because the suspension, investigation, disciplinary hearings and dismissal formed conduct extending over a period, but it struck the claim out under Rule 37(1)(a) because there was no factual basis showing that the differential treatment was because of sex. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal refused the claimant's application to strike out parts of the respondent's response to the unfair dismissal claim. No merits finding on unfair dismissal was made at this preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- Article 5(d) Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.123(3)(a) conduct extending over a period
- Rule 37(1)(a) no reasonable prospect of success
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
- Hale v Brighton & Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Tayside Public Transport Company v Reilly
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- Taylor v OCS Group Ltd
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.