Mr S Russell v Aberdeen City Council — 2026

Mr Russell's claim alleges indirect sex discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 arising from changes to working hours and salary. Following agreements with recognised unions dated 13 June 2025, the respondent notified him on 16 June 2025 that his contractual working week would reduce from 37 to 35 hours from 1 July 2025. His salary was reduced accordingly, and the arrangements included a buyout payment.

The Tribunal held that the relevant act occurred on 13 June 2025, when the agreements were made, rather than on 1 July 2025 when the contractual changes took effect. Early conciliation therefore needed to begin by 12 September 2025, but Mr Russell commenced it on 30 September 2025. The Tribunal also found no conduct extending over a period: there had been a completed decision followed by continuing consequences.

The claim was consequently presented outside the primary limitation period. Mr Russell explained that he had researched the time limit but mistakenly calculated it from 1 July 2025. The Tribunal accepted that evidence and also accepted that he delayed while considering whether to bring proceedings against his current employer. Although he is a solicitor, his experience was in commercial property and he had limited employment-law experience.

On a relatively fine balance, the Tribunal held that it was just and equitable to extend time under section 123. The delay was 47 days at most, the respondent did not allege forensic prejudice caused by it, and a fair trial remained possible. The Tribunal considered the claim and the respondent's potential objective-justification defence to be statable, while making clear that their merits would depend on evidence at a later hearing.

The Tribunal therefore held that the indirect sex discrimination claim was within its jurisdiction. It did not determine whether discrimination occurred and made no monetary award. A further preliminary hearing was to be arranged for case management.