The Appellant was appointed as lead junior counsel to what became known as the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry (“SCAI”). The Respondents were, respectively, the chair of the inquiry and the secretary to the inquiry. The Appellant brought claims for disability discrimination and victimisation against the Respondents. The preliminary issue to be determined was: “Is the (appellant) the holder of a public office in terms of section 50(2) of the Equality Act 2010; which failing, is the Appellant a ’worker‘; and in either case does the Appellant have the necessary status upon which to found a claim of discrimination in this case?” The ET held that the Appellant was not a holder of a public office; and that the Appellant was not a “worker”. As a consequence, the Appellant’s claims were dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The Appellant appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The central question was whether or not the Appellant’s appointment was either made by a member of the executive, or was made on the recommendation of, or subject to the approval of, a member of the executive. First, the appointment was not made by a member of the executive. It was made by the then chair of the SCAI. Secondly, the appointment was not made on the recommendation of, or with the approval of, a member of the executive. Therefore the Appellant was not the holder of a public office. In relation to worker status, there was nothing in the matters identified to suggest that the Appellant was a worker, as opposed to an instructed advocate.