Mr J Halley v Rt. Hon. Lord Carloway and 1 other — 2026

Mr Halley's present claim concerned his suspension from the judicial office of part-time Sheriff on 25 July 2019, the ensuing fitness-for-office proceedings and his removal from office by the First Minister on 28 May 2025. He pleaded discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, harassment, victimisation, and detriment and/or automatic unfair dismissal following alleged protected disclosures. The tribunal also recorded that the case pleaded a breach of human rights. It noted that the decision to remove Mr Halley was not taken by either respondent.

An earlier claim, 8000275/2025, had been brought against Lord Carloway concerning the same suspension, initially as victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. Further particulars in that case also alleged that Mr Halley's statements about Lady Smith were protected disclosures and that the suspension was a resulting detriment. On 22 September 2025 that earlier claim was struck out for lack of jurisdiction because it was time barred; the suspension was found to be a single act with continuing consequences rather than a continuing act.

Applying Scottish res judicata principles, the tribunal asked what had been litigated and decided and examined the essence of the two cases. It applied the rule in Henderson v Henderson, under which matters properly belonging to earlier litigation and capable of being advanced through reasonable diligence cannot ordinarily be raised later, together with the one-action rule discussed in Smith v Sabre Insurance Co. It also considered whether the parties' interests were the same and whether the later case proceeded on substantially the same basis.

The tribunal found that the essence of both cases was the 25 July 2019 suspension and the actions flowing from it. The disciplinary proceedings properly belonged to the subject matter of the earlier litigation. Although the May 2025 removal occurred after the earlier claim was presented, the tribunal found that Mr Halley could have sought to amend that claim and had pleaded the removal in the present case as part of a single continuing act founded on the enduring suspension. Both cases sought damages on the same basis, including loss of earnings and loss of professional standing and reputation.

The tribunal also found the parties' interests to be the same: Lord Pentland was included because he succeeded Lord Carloway as Lord President and the suspension continued under him. It therefore held the present claim to be res judicata and concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear it. None of the pleaded causes of action was determined on its merits, and no remedy was awarded or otherwise addressed.