Mr K McBride v Scottish Ministers: 4102841/2023
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 July 2024 |
| Date | 18 July 2024 |
| Published date | 30 July 2024 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 4102841/2023 |
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
5 Case No: 4102841/2023
Held in Glasgow on 17 – 21 June 2024
Deliberations on 21 June, 1 and 3 July 2024
10 Employment Judge D Hoey
Members P McColl and W Muir
Mr K McBride Claimant
In Person
15
Scottish Ministers Respondent
Represented by:
Mr C MacNeill KC 20 & Mr K McGuire –
Counsel
[Instructed by
Messrs Anderson
Strathern] 25
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The unanimous Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that each of the complaints
is ill founded. The claim is dismissed.
REASONS
1. The claimant raised a number of complaints in connection with his gender 30
critical/sex realist beliefs. The respondent disputed the claim.
2. At a case management preliminary hearing, matters had been focussed and
it was agreed a full hearing would be convened. While the claimant was not
legally represented at the Hearing, he had the benefit of legal advice prior to
raising his claim, evidenced by the high quality legal pleadings and 35
Case No.: 4102841/2023 Page 2
information he had submitted. The claimant was extremely intelligent and
articulate and understood the issues arising and the claims he was bringing.
3. The full hearing took place in person with the parties having been given time
to prepare written submissions and to speak to them.
4. The hearing began by a reminder of the overriding objective and the need for
5
both parties to work together to assist the Tribunal in ensuring that everything
that was done was fair and just with due regard to cost and proportionality.
The rules as to the taking of evidence and how a Tribunal reaches its decision
was explained and the parties had finalised a list of issues and were working
on a statement of agreed facts which continued during the Hearing.
10
Case management
5. The parties had worked together to focus the issues in this case which are
reproduced at Annex B (and were finalised after the submission stage,
following the claimant having been allowed to include a further act of
harassment/direct discrimination that had not originally been included in the
15
list of issues but about which fair notice had been given).
6. The parties were able to agree timing for witnesses and the parties worked
together to assist the Tribunal in achieving the overriding objective, in dealing
with matters justly and fairly taking account of the issues, cost and
proportionality. The case was able to conclude within the allocated time with
20
the parties using one of the days to focus the issues and facts agreed and in
dispute.
7. There were a number of preliminary issues that arose in this case.
8. Firstly, an application had been made by Tribunal Tweets to issue live tweets
during the Hearing as to what was said and discussed. Open justice is given
25
primacy in Scotland and any derogations require to be in the interest of justice
and proportionate. Submissions had been sought in relation to the application
and the Tribunal deliberated and issued a decision. Given the importance of
the issue, the decision that was issued in this case is found at Annex A to this
judgment. This case gave rise to a number of private beliefs of witnesses and
30
Case No.: 4102841/2023 Page 3
those not present. To reduce the risk of error (and misreporting) which arose
by immediate and real time tweeting, reporting was directed to be in the
normal way.
9. Given there were a large number of observers, the Tribunal ensured that any
production to which reference was made was read out, thereby ensuring
5
everyone was able to follow proceedings and understand the evidence and
context.
10. Secondly, the parties had agreed that a person whose name had featured in
the productions should not be referred to. It was not necessary to make any
order as it had been agreed the name would be removed from the productions
10
(and not referred to during the Hearing).
11. There were a large number of witnesses being called with limited time and so
the parties had worked together to agree upon a timetable to ensure the
Tribunal’s time was used fairly. The parties were able to elicit the evidence
they sought in the time available.
15
12. In passing it is worth noting that in this case evidence in chief had been given
by way of written witness statements. This was clearly a case where it was in
the interests of justice to do so (and in accordance with the Presidential
Guidance and Practice Direction). By having witness evidence in writing,
significant savings in time were secured and the parties were able to focus
20
their dispute. Thus there were 2 witnesses whose evidence was able to be
agreed with their attendance to give evidence not being needed. The parties
were also able to clearly focus their questions to ensure the issues arising
were fully and properly addressed.
Issues to be determined
25
13. The issues to be determined were discussed in detail and focussed by the
parties. It was clear from the material the claimant had provided to the
Tribunal that he had the benefit of legal advice. That clearly included the
framing of the issues in respect of which time and care had been taken. The
issues to be determined were agreed and are set out in Annex B. The
30
To continue reading
Request your trial