Mr D Donaldson v University Of Strathclyde — 2026

The tribunal dismissed Mr Donaldson's disability discrimination claim against the University of Strathclyde because it lacked jurisdiction. The preliminary hearing concerned the proper forum, rather than whether discrimination had occurred. The tribunal held that the complaint concerned education under Part 6 of the Equality Act 2010 and had to be brought in the sheriff court.

Mr Donaldson enrolled on the university's Mediation and Conflict Resolution LL.M. course in September 2024. He relied on ADHD, dyslexia, anxiety and depression. He alleged that failures to provide flexible deadlines, extra time, adapted communication, explanations of procedures, mentoring, supervision and regular reviews prevented him from completing modules needed to progress towards practising as a mediator. When he presented his claim, he had passed Mediation in Practice but had an assignment outstanding for Theory and Principles of Conflict Resolution. Passing both modules was required before he could participate in the Mediation Clinic as an Assistant Mediator.

The tribunal found that the Clinic was a project within the university's Law School, controlled and managed by its Head, Professor Adelyn Wilson. Its constitution, advisory board, external funding and work with outside organisations did not make it a separate body. The university managed its finances, employed the staff associated with it and provided its insurance cover. Where evidence conflicted, the judge preferred Professor Wilson's evidence because of her knowledge of the university and the Clinic. The judge considered the university the only possible respondent to the allegations about its course, but said that the lack of jurisdiction prevented a finding to that effect.

The qualifications-body argument failed under sections 53 and 54 of the Equality Act. Applying Nwabueze v University of Law Ltd & Ors, the tribunal held that section 54(4)(c) excluded the governing body of a university covered by section 91 from the qualifications-body provisions in Part 5. The argument that the Clinic performed functions separate from the university's educational role did not overcome that exclusion. The tribunal also found that the Clinic did not regulate the mediation profession or determine its qualification requirements; Scottish Mediation determined accreditation.

The employment-service-provider argument failed under section 56(5), because the university controlled access to the training offered through both the course and the Clinic. The tribunal distinguished Blackwood v Birmingham & Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust: there was no separate placement provider in this case. Blackwood also confirmed that complaints about a university's provision of access to a placement fall under section 91. The vocational nature of the Clinic's work therefore did not bring this complaint within the tribunal's jurisdiction.