Case 8000095/2024 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000095/2024 & 8000096/2024 Preliminary Hearing by Cloud Video Platform at Edinburgh on August 2024 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Oluwafunto Dada v The Scottish Ministers — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000095/2024
- Decision date
- 19 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hosie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000095/2024 & 8000096/2024 Preliminary Hearing by Cloud Video Platform at Edinburgh on August 2024 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Oluwafunto Dada
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought two claims complaining of race discrimination. The tribunal found that the latest incident pleaded in the original ET1s took place in May 2023, while ACAS early conciliation was not started until 22 January 2024 and the claims were presented on 1 and 2 February 2024. The tribunal held that the claims were presented significantly outside the statutory time limit.
The claimant relied on advice said to have been given by a trade union representative, her belief that she should await completion of the internal grievance process, and stress and anxiety as explanations for the delay. The tribunal found the evidence about the trade union advice unclear, held that waiting for the grievance outcome did not alter the tribunal deadline, and found the medical evidence insufficient to show that the claimant was unable to present the claims earlier.
Applying the just and equitable discretion, the tribunal considered the length and reason for delay, the effect on evidence, requests for information, promptness, advice, and prejudice. It concluded that it was not just and equitable to extend time and dismissed the claims for want of jurisdiction. The tribunal also refused the claimant's application to amend, finding that it sought to introduce a new harassment claim and new facts more than a year after the alleged event, and that allowing the amendment would not be in the interests of justice.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The race discrimination complaints in case numbers 8000095/2024 and 8000096/2024 were dismissed for want of jurisdiction because they were presented out of time and the tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The claimant sought to amend her claim to introduce a new harassment claim under section 26 relating to an alleged incident on 1 March 2023. The tribunal refused the amendment application; the proposed claim was not allowed to proceed. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.123(1) Equality Act 2010
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link
- Times Newspapers Ltd v O'Regan
- Alliance & Leicester plc v Kidd
- Friend v Institution of Professional Managers and Specialists
- s.26 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.