Case 8000580/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000580/2023 Held at Aberdeen on June 2024 Employment Judge N M Hosie v Mr Andrew Burr — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000580/2023
- Decision date
- 27 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000580/2023 Held at Aberdeen on June 2024 Employment Judge N M Hosie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 4 June 2024, Employment Judge N M Hosie dealt with a remaining complaint of direct disability discrimination brought by Mr Burr against the University of Aberdeen. The tribunal recorded that the complaint had been identified as direct discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010 at an earlier case management hearing and that Mr Burr's basis was that he had not been offered an interview under the respondent's Guaranteed Interview Scheme for disabled applicants.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination complaint under s.13 Equality Act 2010 was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 37(1)(b) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- two-stage test in HM Prison Service v Dolby and Hassan v Tesco Stores Ltd
- Anyanwu v Southbank Students' Union
- Mechkarov v Citibank NA
- s.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.