ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000183/2023 Preliminary Hearing by Cloud Video Platform at Edinburgh on October 2023 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Jörg Zimmermann v Heriot-Watt University — 2023

Jörg Zimmermann brought the claim to a preliminary hearing on 4 October 2023 before Employment Judge M A Macleod. The respondent applied to strike out the claim under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal did not deal with time bar at that hearing because it had not been identified in the notice of hearing, and the judge considered it unfair to address it without proper notice to the unrepresented claimant.

The tribunal recorded that the claimant's ET1 and later further particulars were lengthy lists of alleged breaches rather than a clear statement of facts. Following an earlier preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Jones, the tribunal understood the pleaded heads of claim to be: a claim that Heriot Watt University had aided victimisation by the University of Warwick under the Equality Act 2010; a claim under the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010; and, from the later Scott Schedule, a claim that SearchHigher, as the respondent's agent, had sabotaged the claimant's application and subjected him to detriment under section 109 of the Equality Act 2010.

On the first head, the tribunal held that the claimant had not clearly identified what the University of Warwick had done that amounted to victimisation, nor had he set out facts showing that the respondent knowingly aided any such act. The claimant relied on alleged failures in recruitment, record keeping, data handling, and concealment, but the tribunal said those matters were not linked to any clearly pleaded underlying act of victimisation. On the blacklisting claim, the tribunal found that the claimant had not shown that any list was a prohibited blacklist within the 2010 Regulations or that it related to trade union membership or activity. On the SearchHigher allegation, the tribunal said the basis of any liability against SearchHigher or the respondent was unclear, including what was meant by sabotage.

The tribunal concluded that all of the claims had no reasonable prospect of success and struck them out under Rule 37(1). No remedy was awarded.