A man who claimed Pride-themed displays at a NatWest branch triggered “severe psychological distress” has failed in his legal bid for £35,000 compensation.
Mark Jennings, a devout Catholic, now faces a hefty legal bill after he brought the case against the bank.
He filed the complaint after encountering LGBT+ promotional materials at the Herne Bay branch in Kent on August 16.
The Edinburgh resident argued the displays caused him significant mental anguish and demanded their removal from the premises.
His legal action sought both financial damages for distress, anxiety and inconvenience, alongside the withdrawal of all Pride-related materials from the branch.
Edinburgh Sheriff Court heard the case but ultimately rejected his claims, ordering him to cover NatWest’s appeal costs.
Mr Jennings suffers from Autism Spectrum Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, Generalised Anxiety Disorder and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Court documents revealed he “describes himself as having a phobia of Pride-related paraphernalia, which exacerbates his mental health conditions”.
A man who claimed pride flags caused him ‘severe psychological distress’ has lost his case against Natwest
|
GETTY
The claimant’s Catholic faith further complicated matters, as he perceives Pride as a movement that “promotes social values which he views as contrary to his religious beliefs”.
These factors led Mr Jennings to request that NatWest implement reasonable adjustments by removing Pride promotions from the branch.
The bank declined his request for accommodations based on the “adverse effect this material had on his mental health”, prompting the legal challenge under the Equality Act 2010.
However, the sheriff dismissed the action after determining it presented “no relevant or sufficiently specific claim in law”.
Mr Jennings objected to Natwest’s use of Pride materials in their Kent branch
|
GETTY
When Mr Jennings attempted to amend his case and pursue an appeal, the court opposed both requests.
During the appeal process, Jennings “made submissions using ChatGPT”, according to court documents.
He sought to modify his original claim, proposing that “exposure to certain visual stimuli associated with Pride branding triggers sensory overload, anxiety spikes, and shutdown/avoidance behaviours, causing him distress”.
The proposed amendments arrived late in proceedings and would have fundamentally altered the nature of his case, factors that contributed to their rejection.
The case was heard at Edinburgh Sheriff Court
|
PA
Sheriff Principal Nigel Ross delivered the final judgement on 21 November, stating: “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.”
The sheriff principal added: “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.”
Mr Ross concluded: “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.”