Ms R Henry v The Scottish Ministers: 4109409/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 May 2023 |
| Date | 19 May 2023 |
| Published date | 05 June 2023 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Sex Discrimination |
| Citation | 4109409/2021 |
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: 4109409/2021
5
Held in Glasgow on 24 April 2023
Employment Judge M Robison
Ms R Henry Claimant
Represented by:
10
Mr M Allison -
Solicitor
The Scottish Ministers Respondent
Represented by:
15
Mr K McGuire -
Solicitor
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
20
The Employment Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim, which is
therefore dismissed.
REASONS
1. This preliminary hearing was listed following a previous preliminary hearing
25
when the claimant’s application to amend was granted and this hearing listed
to consider the respondent’s pleas of lack of jurisdiction and time bar.
2. The respondent in this case raised the question whether this Tribunal has
jurisdiction to hear this claim, now pursued under section 67 of the Equality
Act 2010. Even if this Tribunal does have jurisdiction to hear the claim, the
30
respondent submits that it is time barred.
3. At the outset of the hearing, Mr Allison argued that only the issue of jurisdiction
should be considered, because in regard to the question of time bar, that issue
4109409/2021 Page 2
was dependent on disputed facts and should be deferred until the hearing of
evidence on the merits. Mr McGuire opposed that application in strong terms.
4. I rejected Mr Allison’s application to defer the question of time bar until after
a hearing on the merits. While I did not, at that point, rule out the possibility of
deferring that question, I was not convinced, at that stage, that it would be
5
necessary for me to defer the time bar question until I had heard further
evidence (the Tribunal already having heard evidence on time bar, albeit
when the claim was pursued under section 61). I therefore decided to hear
full arguments from Mr Allison and Mr McGuire.
5. As it transpired, I was able to deal with both issues on the basis of the
10
submissions heard. Although I have heard evidence from the claimant in this
case, I make no findings in fact not least because I was able to deal with the
issues which arose on the basis of legal submissions alone, but also because
the evidence heard related to a claim pursued under section 61.
Relevant law
15
6. Given the extensive nature of the relevant provisions of the Equality Act 2010,
referenced in submissions, I have set these out in an annex for ease of cross
referencing.
Tribunal deliberations and decision
Jurisdiction
20
7. I considered first whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim. This
claim is now pursued under section 67 of the Equality Act 2010, rather than
section 61. The question for consideration in essence is whether this Tribunal
has jurisdiction to hear a claim pursued by a dependant partner of a deceased
member of a pension scheme.
25
Summary argument for the respondent
8. Mr McGuire argues that his point is a straightforward one, that the
employment tribunal does not have jurisdiction under the Equality Act to
determine the claim now brought by the claimant under section 67. The
To continue reading
Request your trial