Case 4112396/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Burns v Smokin’ Gun Fitness Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4112396/2021
- Decision date
- 29 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Kearns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Burns
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 14 July 2022, Employment Judge M Kearns considered case management and jurisdiction issues in Mrs L Burns' claims against Smokin' Gun Fitness Ltd. The claimant had presented claims marked as pregnancy or maternity discrimination and sex discrimination, and the reasons note that she also claimed arrears of pay and automatically unfair dismissal under section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment records that her further and better particulars also raised a sex-based pay disparity point and that it was unclear whether this was background material or an equal pay claim.
The tribunal identified that complaints about acts or omissions before 22 June 2021 might be out of time. It also noted that the claimant's legal basis for each discrimination allegation needed clarification, including whether each act was said to be pregnancy/maternity discrimination under section 18 Equality Act 2010, sex discrimination under section 13 or section 19, or both in the alternative. The judge referred to the protected period for section 18 and noted that the claimant's furlough and return to work raised an additional timing issue.
The tribunal reserved the time-bar questions to be determined at the full hearing. It held that the issue of whether there was 'conduct extending over a period' under section 123(3)(a) Equality Act 2010 was bound up with the merits, and cited South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust v King [2020] IRLR 168 (EAT) for the point that discriminatory acts cannot be run together with non-discriminatory acts for that purpose. No liability findings or monetary award were made at this stage; the tribunal instead ordered further written clarification from the claimant and responses from the respondent before a further case management hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | At this preliminary hearing the tribunal did not determine the merits of the pregnancy/maternity complaint; time-bar and jurisdiction issues were reserved to the full hearing. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | At this preliminary hearing the tribunal did not determine the merits of the sex discrimination complaint; the legal basis and time-bar issues were left for the full hearing. | Other | Sex | — |
| Equal pay | The tribunal noted that the claimant's reference to sex-based pay disparity might amount to an equal pay claim, but no decision was made on amendment or merits at this stage. | Other | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant also claimed automatically unfair dismissal under section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996, but no substantive determination was made at the preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to arrears of pay, but the preliminary hearing did not finally determine any wages claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 123(3)(a) Equality Act 2010
- conduct extending over a period
- just and equitable to extend time
- South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust v King [2020] IRLR 168 (EAT)
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.