Case 8000437/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Member A Grant Tribunal Member N Elliot Mr R Rohatgi v Capita Customer Management Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000437/2023
- Decision date
- 7 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Murphy Tribunal
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- A Grant, N Elliot
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member A Grant Tribunal Member N Elliot Mr R Rohatgi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal refused the claimant's application to strike out the respondent's response. The application was based on the argument that the respondent's representative at a preliminary hearing, an English-qualified barrister, had no right of audience before an employment tribunal sitting in Scotland.
The tribunal held that rights of audience were governed by section 6 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. It found no basis to read into section 6(1)(a) an implied requirement that counsel or solicitors must be qualified in the same jurisdiction as the tribunal. The tribunal considered that the wording and context of the Act supported a broader reading, consistent with the relative informality of employment tribunal proceedings.
The tribunal also held that, even if the claimant's interpretation of section 6(1)(a) were correct, the representative would in any event have had a right of audience under section 6(1)(c) as 'any other person' chosen to represent a party. The authorities and statutory provisions relied on by the claimant did not lead the tribunal to a different conclusion.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This judgment determined only the claimant's application to strike out the respondent's response, which the tribunal refused. The substantive direct race discrimination claim was noted in the background but was not adjudicated in these reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 6 Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- statutory interpretation
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.