Case 4111429/2021 · Employment Tribunal

E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case no: 4111429/2021 Held by means of the Cloud Video Platform on March 2022 Employment Judge W A Meiklejohn Mr N Yamakasi v Tayside Contracts — 2022

Case reference: 4111429/2021
Decision date: 30 March 2022
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge O’Donnell

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case no: 4111429/2021 Held by means of the Cloud Video Platform on March 2022 Employment Judge W A Meiklejohn Mr N Yamakasi

Respondent

Tayside Contracts

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The preliminary hearing concerned the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's Equality Act 2010 claims for non-compliance with an earlier Tribunal order. The claims being pursued were direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation, relying on sex and race. Earlier claims relying on religion or belief and disability had been withdrawn and dismissed by a previous judgment.

The Tribunal found that the earlier directions were an order of the Tribunal and that the claimant had failed to comply with them. The claimant had been required to identify each alleged act of discrimination, when it occurred, the basis for any alleged continuing act, when that period ended, and why it would be just and equitable to hear any out-of-time claim. His two responses did not provide the required information.

Although the ground for strike out under Rule 37(1)(c) was made out, the Tribunal refused to strike out the claims. It took account of authorities cautioning against striking out discrimination claims except in clear or exceptional circumstances, noted that there were central facts in dispute, and decided the considerations against strike out outweighed those in favour. The Tribunal stated that a further order would be issued under Rule 38, with dismissal to follow if the claimant did not comply.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	Direct discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was not substantively determined; respondent's strike-out application under Rule 37(1)(c) was refused.	Other	Race	—
Sex discrimination	Direct discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was not substantively determined; respondent's strike-out application under Rule 37(1)(c) was refused.	Other	Sex	—
Harassment	Harassment claim under section 26 Equality Act 2010, relying on race and sex, was not substantively determined; respondent's strike-out application under Rule 37(1)(c) was refused.	Other	Race	—
Harassment	Harassment claim under section 26 Equality Act 2010, relying on race and sex, was not substantively determined; respondent's strike-out application under Rule 37(1)(c) was refused.	Other	Sex	—
Victimisation	Victimisation claim under section 27 Equality Act 2010 was not substantively determined; respondent's strike-out application under Rule 37(1)(c) was refused.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

16 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.