Case 4123234/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Nos: 4123234/2018 and 4102622/2019 Miss Nicole Bolland v Represented by:15 Mr Johnston Consultant Dunkeld House Hotel LLP — 2019
- Case reference
- 4123234/2018
- Decision date
- 11 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge McFatridge
- Venue
- Dundee
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Nos: 4123234/2018 and 4102622/2019 Miss Nicole Bolland
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 28 June 2019, Employment Judge McFatridge dealt with case management in Nicole Bolland's claims against Dunkeld House Hotel LLP. The first ET1 was described as mainly alleging sex discrimination and discrimination based on her vegetarian belief. A second ET1, lodged on 20 February 2019, was described as adding victimisation for supporting her sister Natalie Bolland, automatically unfair dismissal, detriment for making public interest disclosures, and further sex discrimination allegations.
The tribunal accepted the claimant's further and better particulars, holding that they amplified claims already before the tribunal and would assist it in dealing with the case justly. It allowed the respondent, if so advised, to provide further and better particulars of its response within 28 days.
The tribunal then decided that Nicole's case should be heard together with Natalie's because there was substantial overlap in the factual allegations and witnesses, and because hearing the evidence once would avoid duplication. The judge said the various strands would still need to be kept separate in the tribunal's mind, and directed a further joint preliminary hearing by telephone after the respondent's response had been lodged.
No substantive liability or remedy decision was made in this judgment. The judge also noted that Natalie Bolland was no longer pursuing disability discrimination or breach of contract claims, which reduced the need for one preliminary hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Described in the reasons as part of Nicole Bolland's first and second ET1s. This preliminary hearing accepted further and better particulars and decided case management only; it did not determine liability on the merits. | Other | Sex | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The first claim was described as including discrimination based on the claimant's vegetarian belief. The tribunal did not determine the allegation on the merits at this hearing. | Other | Religion or belief | — |
| Victimisation | The second claim was described as including victimisation based on the claimant supporting her sister Natalie Bolland's tribunal claim. This hearing was procedural only and did not decide the allegation. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The second claim was described as including detriment because the claimant made public interest disclosures under PIDA. No merits finding was made in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The second claim was described as including automatically unfair dismissal. This preliminary judgment did not determine whether the dismissal claim succeeded. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- overriding objective
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.