Case 4111529/2021 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4111529/2021 Preliminary Hearing by Cloud Video Platform on June 2022 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Dr A Kerr
At a preliminary hearing on 1 June 2022 before Employment Judge M A Macleod, the respondent applied to strike out the claimant's claims under Rule 37 on the grounds of alleged non-compliance with an order dated 29 December 2021, unreasonable conduct, and failure actively to pursue the case. The claimant said the case included ordinary unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal said to arise from the Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002, and sex discrimination claims under sections 19, 26 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010; the separate less favourable treatment complaint under the 2002 Regulations was withdrawn. The tribunal referred to Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust and Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James.
The tribunal held that the claimant's responses to the order were diffuse and unhelpful, but that there had not been a substantial failure to comply with the order, that the conduct had not reached the level of unreasonable conduct, and that the claim was being actively pursued. It found that the dispute about the unfairness of the dismissal and its alleged discriminatory impact on the claimant as a woman needed to be heard by a full tribunal, that a fair trial was still possible, and that this was not one of the rare exceptional cases in which strike out of a discrimination claim was appropriate. The respondent's application was therefore refused, and the case was listed for a further two-hour preliminary hearing in person so the claimant's case could be set out in one coherent document.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Respondent's Rule 37 strike-out application was refused; the underlying claims were left to proceed to a further preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
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.
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.