Case 4110455/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Irene Sneddon v Erskine Hospital — 2022
- Case reference
- 4110455/2021
- Decision date
- 25 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McPherson
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Irene Sneddon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms Irene Sneddon, presented her ET1 on 20 July 2021 after ACAS early conciliation, complaining of unfair dismissal from her evening housekeeping job at Erskine Hospital on 21 June 2021, disability discrimination, and holiday pay. The case was managed through a series of preliminary hearings, with the tribunal ordering further and better particulars, a disability impact statement, and a schedule of loss. The judgment records that the claimant later advanced further allegations in email correspondence, including whistleblowing-related matters, and that the hearing on 13 January 2022 was a preliminary hearing on strike out and time-bar.
At the strike-out hearing, the tribunal accepted the respondents' submission that the claim remained insufficiently particularised. The judgment says the claimant had not set out a prima facie disability discrimination case, had not identified a comparator, provision, criterion or practice, or detriment, and had not explained any protected disclosure or whistleblowing detriment. On the unfair dismissal side, the tribunal found that she had not set out the fundamental and repudiatory breach of contract said to have caused her resignation. The tribunal also noted that the alleged discriminatory and whistleblowing matters clustered around October and November 2020, and that the claimant had not advanced a cogent case for extending time.
The tribunal held that the respondents had shown that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. It then exercised its discretion to strike out the whole claim rather than impose a lesser sanction, having regard to the claimant's repeated failure to provide adequate particulars or quantify her loss despite several opportunities. The judgment dismissed the claim in its entirety and did not award any substantive remedy. It left the respondents to make a formal application for expenses within 28 days, with the claimant then given 7 days to comment or object.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant said she was unfairly dismissed after resigning on 21 June 2021; the respondents treated the case as a constructive dismissal argument and the tribunal struck it out with the rest of the claim for want of reasonable prospects. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claimant relied on disability-related complaints, including references to osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. The tribunal found no prima facie case, no adequate particulars, and no basis for a just and equitable extension of time. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal considered allegations about false advertising/veterans and the 'sex pest' issue, but held that the claimant had not set out a clear protected disclosure, detriment, or a sufficient connection between the alleged disclosures and her resignation; time-bar was also in issue. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The ET1 included a complaint that holiday pay was owed, and the respondents said accrued holiday had been paid in the final salary. The tribunal did not determine the point separately and struck out the whole claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 37(1)(a) no reasonable prospects of success
- Rule 2 overriding objective
- two-stage strike-out test in HM Prison Service v Dolby
- Meek v City of Birmingham District Council
- just and equitable extension of time
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.