Case 8000432/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms X v , PCS Union Commissioners for HMRC — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000432/2023
- Decision date
- 24 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Neilson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms X
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing held by CVP on 28 March 2024, the tribunal dealt with time-bar, strike-out, and deposit applications in Ms X's claims against Commissioners for HMRC for direct race discrimination, indirect race discrimination, harassment on grounds of race, and victimisation. During the hearing the claimant withdrew the victimisation claim, and the tribunal dismissed it under Rule 52. The remaining claims were allowed to proceed to the final hearing listed for 20 to 24 May 2024.
On time bar, the tribunal held that there was a prima facie case of a continuing course of conduct extending from the July and August 2022 events involving Mr Robson through the disciplinary process, the disciplinary hearing on 19 January 2023, the first written warning notified on 27 February 2023, and the appeal decision issued on 30 May 2023. Applying Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner and Pugh v National Assembly for Wales, it refused to strike out the direct discrimination, harassment, and first indirect discrimination claims as out of time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010.
On the first indirect discrimination claim, the tribunal accepted that there was an arguable PCP that the respondent did not change names on its internal data systems and that there was a stateable case of group disadvantage. It therefore refused strike-out under Rule 37 and refused a deposit order under Rule 39, referring to the two-stage approach in HM Prison Service v Dolby and the caution against strike-out in discrimination cases in Anyanwu v South Bank Students Union. The tribunal said evidence would be needed at the final hearing, but it could not say at that stage that the claim had no or little reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal struck out the second indirect discrimination claim set out in the claimant's Further and Better Particulars. It held that the alleged PCP, namely the disclosure of the claimant's former name to Edenred UK on 24 January 2024, was a one-off event particular to the claimant and not a PCP within section 19; it cited Ishola v Transport for London. The tribunal noted that the point might instead be treated as an example of disadvantage flowing from the first indirect discrimination claim.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim. The respondent's application to strike it out on time-bar grounds was refused, and the claim was allowed to proceed to the final hearing. | Other | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | First indirect race discrimination claim. The tribunal refused strike-out on time-bar grounds, found there was a prima facie continuing course of conduct, and refused a deposit order under Rule 39. | Other | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Second indirect race discrimination claim, pleaded in the claimant's Further and Better Particulars as a separate allegation about disclosure of her former name to Edenred UK on 24 January 2024. The tribunal struck it out under Rule 37 as a freestanding claim with no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment on grounds of race. The respondent's time-bar strike-out application was refused and the claim was allowed to proceed. | Other | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The claimant withdrew the victimisation claim during the hearing; the tribunal dismissed it under Rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- Pugh v National Assembly for Wales
- HM Prison Service v Dolby
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students Union
- Ishola v Transport for London
- Rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- Rule 39 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- Rule 52 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
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.