Case 4122941/2018 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4122941/2018 Held in Aberdeen on March and May 2019 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr P Wealleans v Represented by Mr W McParland, Solicitor Noble Resources Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 4122941/2018
- Decision date
- 5 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicol Hosie
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4122941/2018 Held in Aberdeen on March and May 2019 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr P Wealleans
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim form alleged unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, and a failure to make reasonable adjustments under section 20. The respondent admitted the dismissal and accepted that the claimant was disabled, but said the dismissal was for capability/ill health and denied the discrimination allegations. After a case management order of 30 January 2019 requiring further particulars, the respondent applied to strike out the claim and, in the alternative, for further case management or a deposit order.
At the preliminary hearing, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had complied with the order on the unfair dismissal complaint and, on the reasonable adjustments complaint, that the pleaded PCP could be construed broadly. The claimant's further particulars said he could return to onshore work, including from Alnwick or Aberdeen, and on either a full-time or part-time basis; the tribunal was not persuaded that the claimant's delay in clarifying these matters was wilful or that the respondent had been prejudiced.
Applying the high threshold for strike-out under Rule 37(1)(a) and the authorities discussed, including Ezsias and Anyanwu, the tribunal held that the central facts were disputed and needed to be tested in evidence. It therefore refused the respondent's strike-out application under both Rule 37(1)(a) and Rule 37(1)(c), held that the unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims should proceed to a final hearing, and directed the claimant to comment in writing within 14 days on the respondent's fallback submissions.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. The respondent's strike-out application was refused and the unfair dismissal claim was allowed to proceed to a final hearing; no substantive merits finding was made. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 discrimination arising from disability. The respondent's strike-out application was refused; the tribunal held the claim could not be struck out at this stage because the central facts were disputed and required evidence. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 20 failure to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal held the PCP issue could be approached broadly, found the claimant had complied sufficiently with the case management order, and refused strike-out; no final liability finding was made. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Rule 37(1)(a) no reasonable prospect of success
- Rule 37(1)(c) non-compliance with order
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students' Union
- s.20 Equality Act 2010 PCP
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- EHRC Employment Code para 4.5
- Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions
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.