Case 4110369/2021 · Employment Tribunal
(sitting alone) Mr I Major v Morton Rolls Limited and 20 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 4110369/2021
- Decision date
- 15 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Strain
Parties
22 namedClaimant
(sitting alone) Mr I Major
Respondents
- Morton Rolls Limited
- Asserted a claim of unfair dismissal. 4. The
- Had Less Than Years’ Service With the
- Described as mental health issues and being described as “illiterate”). 7. The
- ’s application to amend; and (b) the
- Represented himself and made submissions on his own behalf. The
- Had Been Employed by the
- Relied upon the perceived protected characteristic of perceived disability. This was on the basis of what he described as mental health issues. He elaborated, referred to and relied upon a statement he claimed was made to him by the
- ’s representatives website. The
- 33. The
- Had not, in any event, given any detail upon which such a claim could be supported. 35. Beyond the comments and the dimissal no sufficient detail had been given regarding alleged act(s) of discrimination, victimisation or harassment. 36. The
- Relied upon the case of Selkent and submitted that the proposed amendment should not be allowed, lacked sufficient detail, had no legal basis, was potentially time barred and that there would be prejudice to the
- If it were allowed.25 37. The
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented his ET1 on 11 July 2021 alleging unfair dismissal. The respondent applied to strike out on the basis that he had less than two years' service. At the open preliminary hearing on 21 February 2022 the claimant accepted that the unfair dismissal claim could not succeed because he did not have the qualifying service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the tribunal dismissed the original unfair dismissal claim.
The claimant had also sought to amend the claim to add automatic unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation. He said the protected characteristic was perceived disability, based on mental health issues and being described as illiterate, and he relied on earlier allegations of bullying and unfair treatment that had been raised with management and ACAS on 16 April 2021. The tribunal considered the amendment under Selkent and the overriding objective.
The tribunal refused the amendment. It found the proposed new claims were vague, lacked sufficient factual detail and appeared to have little or no factual basis or prospect of success. It held that the automatic unfair dismissal allegation, put on the basis that dismissal occurred while the claimant was on sick leave, had no legal basis on the facts advanced. It also found that the discrimination, victimisation and harassment allegations did not identify a protected act for victimisation, did not link the bullying allegations to disability, and did not provide enough information about anxiety and depression or any other disability-related basis for the new claims.
The tribunal further held that the claims other than automatic unfair dismissal were out of time and that there was no reason to extend time on a just and equitable basis. It noted that the claimant had not had legal advice but had researched the position online and could have raised the matters in his original ET1. Refusing amendment was, in the tribunal's view, consistent with the overriding objective because allowing it would have caused delay, expense and prejudice to the respondent.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant accepted at the hearing that he did not have the two years' qualifying service required by s.108 ERA 1996; the tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim in the ET1. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.108 ERA 1996
- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore [1996] IRLR 661
- Amey Services Ltd and another v Aldridge and others UKEATS/0007/16
- overriding objective
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2002] EWCA Civ 1686
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble & Others [1997] IRLR 336
- Mensah v Royal College of Midwives UKEAT/124/94
- Cocking v Sandhurst Stationers Ltd 1974 ICR 650
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.