Case 8000259/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Dr A Nassar v National Waiting Times Centre Board — 2023
- Case reference
- 8000259/2025
- Decision date
- 19 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Campbell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr A Nassar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing was limited to whether all or part of Dr A Nassar's claim was time-barred. The claim was presented on 31 January 2025 after ACAS early conciliation, and the respondent argued that the complaint was out of time because the claimant had last worked in January 2024. The claimant's pleaded age discrimination case concerned an email from Jennifer Hayes on 19 December 2023 saying he could no longer be offered bank work unless he obtained a substantive NHS post, while he said two younger practitioners, Mr Finn and Mr Welch, were allowed to continue bank work.
The tribunal held that the age discrimination complaint disclosed a stateable case and could proceed to a full hearing. At this stage it was sufficient that the claimant offered to prove that younger comparators in materially similar circumstances were treated more favourably by continuing to receive paid bank work. The judge said the respondent's arguments about the reason for the decision, comparator status, and whether the complaint amounted to a single act or a continuing act could not be resolved on the preliminary hearing material, and the findings were provisional only.
A second part of the claim concerned a later decision by Medical Director Mark McGregor after a letter of 27 November 2024 and an email of 3 December 2024 seeking further supervised bank work. The claimant said this was not an age discrimination claim, and after being given time to clarify it he was unable to describe it as a competent tribunal claim. The judge therefore allowed the first part of the case to proceed but not the second part.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Preliminary hearing only; the tribunal held that this complaint was presented within time and could proceed to a full hearing, but it made no final finding on liability. | Other | Age | — |
| Other | This second part of the claim was said by the claimant not to be age discrimination; the tribunal held he had not framed it as a competent Employment Tribunal claim and it did not proceed. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- section 13 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.