Case 8001535/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Patrick McAuley v The Law Society of Scotland and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001535/2024
- Decision date
- 26 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Patrick McAuley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a solicitor facing professional disciplinary allegations, brought complaints against the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission under section 8 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and sections 13, 19, 26 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010, alleging race and religion or belief discrimination in the respondents' handling of complaints against him. At a preliminary hearing in Glasgow before Employment Judge M Whitcombe on 26 February 2025, the Tribunal considered jurisdiction and a cross-application by the claimant to strike out both responses.
The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction over the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 claim, because an Employment Tribunal is a creature of statute and the claimant identified no statutory provision conferring such jurisdiction. On the Equality Act claims, the claimant relied only on section 41 (contract workers) within Part 5; the Tribunal found that neither respondent was a 'principal' nor was the claimant a 'contract worker' for the purposes of that section, so section 120 did not confer jurisdiction. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the second respondent could be sued by reason of close connection with the first if section 41 was not satisfied, and rejected the claimant's human rights arguments, holding that Article 6 was engaged but not breached and that a conforming interpretation under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 could not extend the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
The claimant's application to strike out the respondents' responses was refused: the Tribunal held that, taken at their pleaded highest, the responses could not be said to have no reasonable prospect of success, and the case was at too early a stage for strike-out. Given the conclusions on jurisdiction, the claim was dismissed in its entirety. No remedy was awarded; the figures of £100,000 and £75,000 referred to in the judgment were the sums the claimant had sought for injury to feelings, not amounts awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Brought under sections 13, 19, 26 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010. Dismissed because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction under section 120: the claimant relied only on section 41 (contract workers) within Part 5, and the Tribunal found that neither respondent was a 'principal' and the claimant was not a 'contract worker' for the purposes of section 41. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Brought under sections 13, 19, 26 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010. Dismissed on the same jurisdictional basis as the race discrimination claim: section 41 of the Equality Act 2010 did not apply to either respondent, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction under section 120. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | Civil claim under section 8 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Dismissed because the Employment Tribunal, as a creature of statute, has no jurisdiction to hear civil claims under that Act; the claimant did not identify any statutory provision conferring such jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Brought under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 alongside the discrimination complaints. Dismissed for the same jurisdictional reason: the Tribunal had no jurisdiction under section 120 because section 41 did not apply to either respondent and the claimant did not rely on any other Part 5 provision. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 41 of the Equality Act 2010 (Contract Workers)
- section 120 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 8 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
- Leeds City Council v Woodhouse [2010] EWCA Civ 410
- Veakins v Kier Islington [2009] EWCA Civ 1288
- Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30
- sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998
- Articles 6 and 14 ECHR
- rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (strike out)
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.