Case 8000205/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Trudi Spence v Represented by:10 Ms L Jordan - Solicitor Scotia Gas Networks Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 8000205/2023
- Decision date
- 11 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Kearns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Trudi Spence
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on 4 July 2023 in Glasgow before Employment Judge M Kearns. Ms Trudi Spence had been employed by Scotia Gas Networks Ltd from 10 July 1989 until 24 February 2023, when she was medically retired. The tribunal dealt with the claimant's application to amend the ET1, the respondent's application to amend the ET3, and whether there should be a separate preliminary hearing on time bar.
The judge found that, before May 2023, both the claimant and her husband had represented to the respondent that the claimant had received legal advice about her claim, but those representations were not correct. At the time the ET1 was presented on 3 May 2023, the claimant had received some advice from ACAS and had researched the law online, but she had not received advice from a lawyer. The tribunal also noted the early conciliation dates and explained the operation of the section 207B(3) Employment Rights Act 1996 'stop the clock' provisions.
Applying the Selkent test, the tribunal allowed the claimant's amendment except for paragraphs 1 and 37, paragraph 38(d) insofar as it pleaded indirect discrimination, and paragraph 44 insofar as it related to indirect discrimination. The judge held that most of the amendments were further particulars of existing unfair dismissal and disability discrimination complaints, and that the claimant's disability status was accepted by the respondent in the ET3. The tribunal held that the proposed indirect discrimination head was a new and discrete claim, that it was significantly time-barred, and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time for it.
The respondent's application for a separate preliminary hearing on time bar was refused because the tribunal considered the time-bar question to be closely linked with the merits and likely to duplicate evidence. The judgment recorded that the time-bar issue remained reserved for acts or omissions predating 28 November 2022 and that the case would proceed to a full hearing. No substantive merits decision and no monetary award were made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | This preliminary hearing did not decide the merits of the unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal allowed the ET1 to be amended to particularise the existing claim, but reserved the time-bar issues and directed that they be determined at the full hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | This preliminary hearing did not decide the merits of the disability discrimination claim. The tribunal recorded that the respondent accepted the claimant's disability status in the ET3 and allowed the ET1 to be amended to particularise the existing disability discrimination allegations, while reserving the time-bar issues for the full hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
| Other | The proposed amendment to add indirect discrimination was refused. The tribunal held it was a new, discrete head of claim, that it was significantly time-barred, and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time for it. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Selkent test
- s.207B(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Miller v The Ministry of Justice
- just and equitable extension of time
- conduct extending over a period
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.