Claimant v Church of Scotland Central Services Committee
Outcome
Individual claims
Respondent applied to strike out the claim arguing claimant had resigned. Judge found core disputed facts as to whether there was express dismissal or constructive dismissal dependent on evidence at final hearing. Strike out application refused as test not met.
Respondent argued protected act not established (complaint in December 2022). Judge found sufficient detail provided to meet test on strike out, with core disputed fact as to reason for treatment. Evidence at full hearing required.
Claim proceeded to final hearing. No strike out or deposit order application determined in relation to this claim at this preliminary hearing.
Claim proceeded to final hearing. No strike out or deposit order application determined in relation to this claim at this preliminary hearing.
Facts
Claimant worked for Church of Scotland and took maternity leave. In June 2024, through Citizens Advice Bureau adviser, she sought release from employment. Parties discussed offsetting contractual maternity pay repayment (£5,934.42) against accrued holiday pay. Agreement in principle reached on 27 June 2024 but settlement agreement not completed due to dispute over payment of legal costs. Respondent issued letter on 15 July 2024 headed 'Notice of Resignation' stating employment would terminate on 26 July 2024. Claimant denied resigning and brought claims including unfair dismissal and victimisation.
Decision
Judge refused respondent's applications to strike out unfair dismissal and victimisation claims and refused deposit order applications. For unfair dismissal, judge found core disputed facts as to whether there was express dismissal or constructive dismissal requiring full hearing. For victimisation, judge found claimant had provided sufficient detail of protected act (complaint in December 2022 referring to discriminatory comments) to meet the high test for strike out of discrimination claims. Applications for £1,000 deposit orders also refused given claimant's limited means and public interest in hearing discrimination claims.
Practical note
Strike out applications for discrimination and unfair dismissal claims will fail where core disputed facts depend on oral evidence, even where documentary evidence appears to support one party's case, and judges must take claimant's case at its highest.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4106811/2024
- Decision date
- 21 March 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- charity
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep