Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the world
Sign up to our free Morning Headlines email
Sign up to our free Morning Headlines email
A bank customer who claimed he has a “phobia” of materials related to Pride has lost a case against NatWest in which he alleged a display in one of its branches caused him “severe psychological distress”.
Mark Jennings said he saw some material that promoted LGBT+ issues when he went to his regular branch of the bank in Herne Bay, Kent, on 16 August.
Mr Jennings, who has autism spectrum disorder, borderline personality disorder, generalised anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, “describes himself as having a phobia of Pride-related paraphernalia, which exacerbates his mental health conditions”, according to court documents.
He claimed his conditions are compounded by his Catholic faith, while he sees Pride as a movement that “promotes social values which he views as contrary to his religious beliefs”.
His request that NatWest “make reasonable adjustments for his condition” by not promoting Pride at the branch due to the “adverse effect this material had on his mental health” was rejected, the documents added.
Mr Jennings claimed this refusal violated the Equality Act 2010, with his mental health conditions all recognised disabilities under the act, and launched a court case against NatWest.
“He averred that he has since been unable to visit those branch premises without suffering severe psychological distress, causing increased social isolation and poor mental health,” the documents state.
The case was heard at Edinburgh Sheriff Court, with Mr Jennings seeking not only the removal of Pride-related paraphernalia in the bank’s Herne Bay branch but also £35,000 for “distress, anxiety and inconvenience”.
However, the sheriff dismissed the action on the basis that it raised “no relevant or sufficiently specific claim in law”.
An amendment proposed by Mr Jennings and request for an appeal were later opposed by the court.
The documents outline how he had sought to replace the details of his disabilities with an allegation that “exposure to certain visual stimuli associated with Pride branding triggers sensory overload, anxiety spikes, and shutdown/avoidance behaviours, causing him distress”.
Mr Jennings lodged his request for an appeal after he “made submissions using ChatGPT”.
He alleged: “The pleadings made no link between the operator of the bank branch and the respondent. The sheriff had correctly identified a lack of specification, and therefore explanation, of how the facts led to liability. The motion to amend at debate had been correctly refused, as it was vague, late and fundamentally changed the case. Expenses are always a matter for the court’s discretion.”
On 21 November, Sheriff Principal N A Ross concluded: “I will refuse the appellant’s motion to amend in terms of the minute of amendment.
“The minute, even if allowed, does not present a coherent and legally relevant case which could be sent for a hearing on evidence. It does not give fair notice of critical parts of the case, to allow the respondent to prepare and present any defence. It is inexcusably late, both in time and in relation to the stage of proceedings at which it is introduced, with lateness not being either vouched or adequately explained by disability or any other cause.
“The unamended original case remains, for the reasons set out by the sheriff, irrelevant and so lacking in specification as to fail to give fair notice. This appeal must fail.”
Mr Jennings was also ordered to pay NatWest’s appeal expenses.
A NatWest Group spokesperson said: “We welcome the Sheriff Appeal Court’s dismissal of the claims against us.”
