Case 8000111/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Katrina Williamson v British Gas Trading Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 8000111/2022
- Decision date
- 5 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R McPherson
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Katrina Williamson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had previously brought a 2020 Employment Tribunal claim against the respondent, asserting unfair dismissal and Equality Act claims. That claim was settled by a COT3 agreement reached through ACAS conciliation. The later 2022 claim concerned the respondent advising the claimant on 24 June 2022 that her application for a Customer Service Advisor role would not proceed further.
The claimant brought claims of direct disability discrimination, including asserted associated disability, and victimisation. For victimisation she relied on the 2020 Tribunal claim as the protected act. For direct discrimination she relied on comparators who had not signed a COT3 agreement following Tribunal proceedings.
The Tribunal considered the wording of the COT3 and authorities on the construction of settlement agreements. It held that the agreement extended to future claims arising out of or connected with the claimant's employment or its termination, whether or not such claims existed or were known or contemplated at the date of the agreement. It concluded that both current claims depended on the earlier employment, termination, COT3, or 2020 Tribunal claim, and that the COT3 excluded the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The claims were therefore dismissed without determination of their substantive merits.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The direct disability discrimination claim under s13 Equality Act 2010, including asserted associated disability, was dismissed because the Tribunal held that the COT3 agreement excluded jurisdiction to consider the claim. The merits of disability status or discrimination were not determined. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation claim under s27 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed because the Tribunal held that the COT3 agreement excluded jurisdiction to consider the claim. The merits of the alleged victimisation were not determined. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s13 Equality Act 2010
- s27 Equality Act 2010
- s203(2)(e) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s144(4)(a) Equality Act 2010
- Bank Credit and Commerce International SA v Ali
- Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society
- Livingstone v Hepworth Refractories Plc
- Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital Trust v Howard
- McLean v TLC Marketing Plc
- DWP v Brindley
- Bathgate v Technip UK
- Arvunescu v Quick Release (Automobile) Ltd
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.