Case 8000042/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Christopher Milloy v Telecom Service Centres Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 8000042/2023
- Decision date
- 30 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McPherson
- Venue
- public at Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Christopher Milloy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented an ET1 on 30 January 2023 after ACAS early conciliation, alleging disability and sexual orientation discrimination and holiday pay. The respondent accepted that the claimant had epilepsy but disputed the discrimination allegations, the holiday pay claim, and later opposed an amendment application seeking to add constructive dismissal based on events said to culminate in suspension on 13 September 2022 and resignation on 14 September 2022.
The tribunal held that the alleged discriminatory acts all fell within the claimant's secondment as an IT technician, which ended on 25 August 2022, so the Equality Act claims were outside the three-month time limit by the time ACAS was notified on 9 December 2022. Applying the section 123 Equality Act 2010 test and considering the Robertson, Keeble and Adedeji factors, the tribunal found the claimant had not shown it was just and equitable to extend time. It relied on the historic nature of the events, the claimant's awareness of his rights by September and November 2022, the delay in particularising the claims, and the prejudice to the respondent from having to investigate older events.
The tribunal also refused leave to amend the ET1 to add constructive dismissal. Applying Selkent, Chandhok, Traynor, Vaughan and related authorities, it found the proposed amendment was a new head of claim rather than a mere relabelling exercise, that it was reasonably practicable to include it in the original ET1 presented on 30 January 2023, and that the claimant's 3 July 2023 amendment request came too late. The judge therefore refused the amendment as not being in the interests of justice.
As a result, the claimant's claim was dismissed in its entirety except for the outstanding holiday pay complaint under regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The judgment records that this holiday pay issue remained to proceed to a short final hearing, and that the claimant had quantified it at £426.91 in later loss papers, but no merits determination or award was made on that head in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held the disability discrimination heads, including discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments, were time-barred under section 123 Equality Act 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The harassment allegations were held time-barred under section 123 Equality Act 2010 and dismissed outwith the tribunal's jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The ET1 and ET3 referred to discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation / perceived sexual orientation; the reserved reasons did not separately analyse that label but the tribunal's final disposal dismissed all discrimination allegations as time-barred. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The claimant's application to amend the ET1 to add constructive dismissal was refused. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to include the claim in the original ET1 and, in any event, the July 2023 amendment request was too late and not in the interests of justice. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Keeble factors
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- Chandhok v Tirkey
- Ladbrokes Racing Ltd v Traynor
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
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.