Case 8000517/2023 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000517/2023 (V)5 Held on November 2024 Employment Judge J M Hendry Y Naique
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 The judgment also recorded that an earlier whistleblowing claim had been withdrawn.
This 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out at the preliminary hearing. The tribunal said there was no basis for unfair dismissal because the claimant had insufficient service, and it rejected the attempt to rely on s.104(1) ERA 1996 as misconceived and not properly pled. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim pleaded as discrimination on the grounds of perceived disability. Struck out because the tribunal held the claimant had not identified the perceived condition with sufficient detail and had not shown a viable basis for saying the alleged support failures were unfavourable treatment on that pleaded case. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Claim for harassment on the grounds of perceived disability. Struck out on the same reasoning as the perceived disability discrimination claim. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Claim for harassment on the grounds of race was not struck out, but the tribunal made a deposit order of £500, taking the view that the claim had little reasonable prospects of success. | Other | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim was not struck out, but the tribunal made a deposit order of £500 on the basis that the pleaded case had little reasonable prospects of success. | Other | Race | — |
The 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.
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.