Case 8001973/2025 · Employment Tribunal

Mr R Otley v Advocate General for Scotland — 2026

Case reference: 8001973/2025
Decision date: 8 July 2026
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge Hendry
Venue: Chambers

Indexed: 23 July 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr R Otley

Respondent

Advocate General for Scotland

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the preliminary hearing, Mr Otley accepted that his age discrimination and unfair dismissal claims were not competent and withdrew them. The Tribunal consequently dismissed those claims following withdrawal. His references to bullying and harassment did not identify treatment related to a protected characteristic capable of founding a claim under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010.

For victimisation, Mr Otley relied principally on a service complaint dated 5 April 2022 as the asserted gateway to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that neither that complaint nor the other service complaints constituted a protected act within section 27(2)(a)–(d) of the Equality Act 2010. Mr Otley had not articulated that he was marginalised or harassed because he made the April 2022 complaint, and that complaint did not allege discrimination connected to a protected characteristic or otherwise formulate the statutory claim subsequently advanced.

The Tribunal also held that the April 2022 complaint was not a service complaint about the matter for the purposes of the jurisdictional requirement. If it was the complaint relied upon, the Employment Tribunal claim had not been lodged within the stated six-month time limit. The victimisation claim was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Mr Otley's application to add claims under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 was refused. The Tribunal found that the proposed amendment introduced a substantially new claim and that the July and August 2024 service complaints were not in respect of the same matter as the proposed allegations. It also found that, if those complaints were relied upon, the proposed claims were more than 19 months old and outside the six-month time limit. Applying the Selkent amendment principles and balancing the hardship to each party, the Tribunal concluded that the balance was against allowing the amendment. No monetary award or deposit order was made; the £1,000 figure appeared only in the respondent's alternative application for a deposit order.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Age discrimination	The claimant withdrew the claim after accepting it was not competent; the operative judgment records that it was dismissed following withdrawal.	Withdrawn	Age	—
Unfair dismissal	The claimant withdrew the claim after accepting it was not competent; the operative judgment records that it was dismissed following withdrawal.	Withdrawn	—	—
Victimisation	Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the claimant had not established a qualifying protected act or a service complaint about the matter and, insofar as he relied on the April 2022 complaint, the claim was outside the applicable time limit.	Dismissed	—	—
Harassment	The judgment considered allegations described as bullying and harassment alongside victimisation. No protected characteristic was identified and the operative judgment did not state a separate disposition for a section 26 harassment claim.	Other	—	—
Part-time worker regulations	The application to amend the proceedings to add claims under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 was refused; the proposed claims were therefore not admitted for determination on their merits.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

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.

Open official judgment 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.