Case 4111275/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Drennan v Jamie Arthur and 2 others — 2020
- Case reference
- 4111275/2019
- Decision date
- 13 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McFatridge
- Venue
- Dundee
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr D Drennan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 4 February 2020, the tribunal accepted the claimant's further and better particulars in full, applying Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore. It held that most of the new material was proper particularisation of the ET1, although the specific sex discrimination allegations concerning Jibril Mohammed and the specific race discrimination allegations were new matters. It then refused the respondents' strike-out application in full.
The tribunal applied the usual caution against striking out discrimination claims and considered each head on the basis that the claimant's case should be taken at its highest. It allowed the direct sex discrimination claim against the company and Frances Bowie, the automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996, the whistleblowing detriment claim under section 47B ERA 1996, and the direct race discrimination claim concerning Jibril Mohammed to proceed, finding that none met the threshold for strike out.
It made deposit orders of £75 each only in relation to the direct sex discrimination and harassment allegation against Jamie Arthur and the sex discrimination and harassment allegation against the company relating to Jibril Mohammed, finding that those allegations had little reasonable prospect of success but not no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant said he was receiving state benefits of about £600 per month and had no capital or savings, which the tribunal took into account when setting the deposits at a total of £150. It said its refusal to strike out claims, and its refusal to order deposits on the other allegations, did not imply any view that the claims were well founded, and it listed a further case management preliminary hearing for no earlier than 17 March 2020.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal accepted the further particulars, refused strike out, and made a deposit order of £75 because the direct sex discrimination and harassment allegation against Jamie Arthur had little reasonable prospect of success; no merits finding was made. | Other | Sex | £75 |
| Sex discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held the direct sex discrimination claim against the company and Frances Bowie was stateable and should proceed; no strike out or deposit order was made. | Other | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. The automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 was not struck out; the tribunal could not say it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Preliminary hearing only. The whistleblowing detriment claim under section 47B ERA 1996 was not struck out; no deposit order was made. | Other | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal refused strike out but made a deposit order of £75 because the sex discrimination and harassment allegation against the company relating to Jibril Mohammed had little reasonable prospect of success; no merits finding was made. | Other | Sex | £75 |
| Race discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The direct race discrimination claim relating to Jibril Mohammed was not struck out and no deposit order was made. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £150
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore
- E D and F Man Liquid Products Ltd v Patel and another
- Ashok Ahir v British Airways plc
- Anyanwu v South Bank Student Unions
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- no reasonable prospect of success
- little reasonable prospect 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.