ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Nos: 8000194/2022 & 8000048/2023 Preliminary Hearing per Written Submissions in Chambers on September 2023 Employment Judge: M A Macleod John Halley v (1) Roderick William Dunlop KC and 1 other — 2023

The combined cases were heard on written submissions only, with Employment Judge M A Macleod deciding preliminary issues in chambers. The tribunal considered time bar, whether the alleged acts were capable of amounting to detriment and therefore victimisation, whether either respondent was a qualifications body, whether the claimant had withdrawn part of the case, and whether an amendment should be allowed. It recorded that the claimant had medical evidence said to prevent attendance, so the time-bar issue on the first respondent’s BBC Judicial Review involvement could not be finally determined without hearing evidence.

As to the first respondent, the tribunal held that the BBC Judicial Review allegations appeared to be out of time on their face, but it could not finally dismiss them on limitation grounds without hearing from the claimant. It also held that conduct by an advocate in court proceedings was not incapable in law of amounting to a detriment for the purposes of section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. However, the claimant’s 26 May 2023 email was found to be a binding withdrawal of the BBC Judicial Review factual allegations, and that part of the claim was dismissed under Rule 52. The judgment noted that the remaining complaint against the first respondent concerned the Dean’s Direction of 31 August 2022 and was said to be on the grounds of disability.

On the second respondent, the tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the claim and rejected the argument that the respondent was a qualifications body. It considered the pleaded complaint to be capable, at this stage, of amounting to victimisation, but said that the causation and detriment questions would require evidence. The claimant’s wider amendment application of 15 June 2023 was refused except for the first two sentences, which stated that the claim proceeded under section 48(5)(b) and (e) of the Equality Act 2010 and that section 54(2) was irrelevant. No monetary award was made in this preliminary judgment.