E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000517/2023 (V)5 Held on November 2024 Employment Judge J M Hendry Y Naique v Scottish Ministers (Education Scotland) st and 6 others — 2024

At the urgent case management CVP hearing on 5 November 2024, the tribunal first dealt with the claimant's late application to amend the ET1 to add victimisation. Applying Selkent and Jesuthasan, it refused leave to amend because the proposed case was raised late, was not clearly particularised as to the protected act, the alleged detriments, or the causal link to the grievance, and would have been difficult for the respondent to answer fairly before the listed hearing.

The tribunal then considered the respondent's strike-out application. It struck out the unfair dismissal claim, holding that the claimant had insufficient service and that his argument under s.104(1) ERA 1996 was not made out on the pleadings. It also struck out the claims for discrimination and harassment based on perceived disability. The tribunal accepted the respondent's submission that the claimant had not identified with sufficient precision what disability he was said to be perceived as having, and held that the pleaded failures to support him could not logically amount to unfavourable treatment on the basis of a perceived disability as presented.

The race claims were treated differently. The tribunal was not persuaded to strike out the harassment claim based on race or the direct race discrimination claim at that stage, but found they had little reasonable prospects of success and made deposit orders of £500 on each claim. In reaching that decision it referred to the cautious approach to striking out discrimination claims and to the claimant's means, noting that he said he had modest savings of £6,000. The judgment also recorded that an earlier whistleblowing claim had been withdrawn.