Case 4122324/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Leitch v Lothian Health Board — 2019
- Case reference
- 4122324/2018
- Decision date
- 3 February 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Leitch
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant alleged disability discrimination by Lothian Health Board in relation to a number of unsuccessful applications for employment. The respondent applied to strike out the claim both for non-compliance with tribunal orders and on the basis that it had no reasonable prospects of success. No evidence was heard; the tribunal considered submissions, documents and the tribunal file.
The tribunal found that the claimant had not sufficiently complied with the earlier order requiring specification of his claim. He had provided some information about alleged impairments and some interview documents, but had not completed the Scott Schedule properly, had not set out the basic facts relied on for each Equality Act provision, and had not provided medical evidence supporting disability status. The tribunal also considered that, as matters stood, the claims had no reasonable prospects of success because the fundamental facts had not been set out.
The tribunal nevertheless decided not to strike out the claim at that stage. Having regard to the approach to strike out in discrimination cases and the overriding objective, it gave the claimant a final opportunity to provide specified information and medical material. The applications for strike out were adjourned to 30 September 2019, with an unless order providing that the claim would be dismissed if the claimant did not comply with the new order in time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claimant alleged disability discrimination in relation to unsuccessful job applications. The tribunal did not determine the merits or finally dispose of the claim; it adjourned the respondent's strike-out applications and made further case management orders, including an unless order. | Other | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation was identified as one of the potential Equality Act claims referred to in the claimant's earlier material, but the tribunal recorded that nothing had yet been identified that could amount to such a claim. It was not finally determined. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- overriding objective
- Rule 37 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 38 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- HM Prison Service v Dolby two-stage strike out test
- Hasan v Tesco Stores Ltd
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students' Union
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Ukegheson v Haringey London Borough Council
- Ahir v British Airways plc
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
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.