Case 4112056/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Universal Student Living Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4112056/2021
- Decision date
- 14 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Bradley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing the tribunal decided whether the claimant's Further and Better Particulars amounted to amendment and which claims should proceed. It recorded that the age and race discrimination claims had been withdrawn and dismissed under Rule 52. The claimant's pleaded case concerned disability reasonable adjustments, unfair dismissal, TUPE and detriment for protected disclosures, arising out of his work as a building manager and the transfer of his employment on 29 July 2021.
Applying Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore, Argyll & Clyde Health Board v Foulds and Chandhok and another v Tirkey, the tribunal held that the section 20 Equality Act 2010 reasonable-adjustments claim was not a new cause of action. The ET1, agenda and later particulars were treated as sufficient to identify that claim, and it was allowed to proceed to a further case management preliminary hearing.
The tribunal refused the claimant's attempt to add Homes for Students Ltd as a respondent for unfair dismissal. It held that, after the 5 November 2021 rejection letter and the January 2022 preliminary hearing, the claimant had not taken the available steps to regularise that claim, that the amendment was out of time, and that there was no relevant unfair dismissal claim under section 98 ERA 1996 or section 103A ERA 1996 that could proceed. By contrast, the TUPE failure-to-consult point was held to be sufficiently pleaded in the ET1 and was allowed to proceed, subject to any later issue about whether TUPE applied.
The tribunal also treated the pleaded victimisation as a detriment claim under section 47B ERA 1996. It held that alleged disclosures said to have been made on 21 and 23 August 2021 to an H4S employee could not proceed, and that the June 2019 laptop point was a new, out-of-time claim. The alleged June 2019 disclosure about gas safety, fire extinguishers and ventilation, and the coronavirus-regulations disclosures, were allowed to proceed in limited form. No remedy was determined at this stage.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The tribunal recorded that this claim was withdrawn at the hearing and dismissed under Rule 52 after the withdrawal was confirmed. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal recorded that this claim was withdrawn at the hearing and dismissed under Rule 52 after the withdrawal was confirmed. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim under section 20 Equality Act 2010 (reasonable adjustments) was held to be sufficiently foreshadowed in the ET1, agenda and further particulars and was allowed to proceed to a later case management preliminary hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The application to add Homes for Students Ltd as respondent was refused; the tribunal held there was no relevant unfair dismissal claim under section 98 ERA 1996 or section 103A ERA 1996 that could proceed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The alleged failure to inform and consult about the 29 July 2021 transfer/acquisition was held to be sufficiently pleaded in the ET1 and was allowed to proceed. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal treated the pleaded victimisation point as a detriment claim under section 47B ERA 1996. It excluded some alleged disclosures, including the June 2019 laptop point and the 21 and 23 August 2021 matters to an H4S employee, but allowed the building-compliance and coronavirus-regulations allegations to proceed. |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- Argyll & Clyde Health Board v Foulds
- Chandhok and another v Tirkey
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.