Claimant v University of Aberdeen

Claim struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal found that the claimant was offered the job (as evidenced by contemporaneous documents, selection panel notes, and emails sent on 1 and 6 December 2023 which were confirmed by IT system investigation to have been sent to the correct address and received by Google's mail servers). The claimant's assertion that he was not offered the job had no reasonable prospect of being proved.

Claim struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The premise of the claim was that the respondent did not offer the claimant the job for discriminatory reasons, but the tribunal found overwhelming documentary evidence that the claimant was selected as the best candidate and was offered the job via emails on 1 and 6 December 2023.

Claim struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant alleged discrimination based on being heterosexual and not fitting the respondent's 'diversity and inclusion agenda', but the tribunal found the respondent had offered him the job, undermining the entire basis of the discrimination claim.

Claim struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant alleged he was told they were looking for candidates from 'under-represented backgrounds' and that as a white male he was discriminated against. However, the tribunal found the respondent selected him as the best candidate and offered him the job, which was inconsistent with discriminatory treatment.

Claim struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal found that even taking the claimant's case at its highest, he could not overcome the contemporaneous documentary evidence showing he was offered the job, which was fatal to his claim of sex discrimination.

Claim struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal concluded the claimant's assertion that documents had been fabricated (with the exception of one email that was altered after the fact and was not material) was without foundation and inherently implausible.

Claim struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant alleged interview questions about inclusion and diversity were harassing, but the tribunal found these were in keeping with the purpose of the role (to make tennis more inclusive) and the claimant had engaged positively with them at the time.

Claim struck out as part of the overall strike out, as there was no evidence of harassment at the time of the events and the claimant's underlying case (that he was not offered the job) had no reasonable prospect of success.

Claim struck out as part of the overall strike out, with the tribunal finding the claimant gave no indication at the time that he considered the interview questions harassing.

Claim struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The protected act relied upon was the presentation of the ET1 claim form on 17 February 2024, but the alleged detriment occurred on 5 February 2024, predating the protected act. The claimant mentioned filing a claim on 23 January 2024 but provided no details, so there was nothing to trigger protection.