Mr C Aston v The Martlet Group Ltd Formerly Jim Walker and Company Ltd ta I Ride
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Auerbach |
| Neutral Citation | UKEAT/0274/18/BA |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination,Practice,Procedure,Victimisation Discrimination,Procedure - Estoppel or Abuse of Process,Victimisation Discrimination - Detriment,Not landmark |
| Date | 21 May 2019 |
| Published date | 24 May 2019 |
Copyright 2019
Appeal No. UKEAT/0274/18/BA
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
FLEETBANK HOUSE, 2-6 SALISBURY SQUARE, LONDON EC4Y 8AE
At the Tribunal
On 7 & 8 March 2019
Judgment handed down on 21 May 2019
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE AUERBACH
(SITTING ALONE)
MR C ASTON APPELLANT
THE MARTLET GROUP LIMITED
(FORMERLY JIM WALKER AND COMPANY LIMITED T/A I-RIDE) RESPONDENT
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
UKEAT/0274/18/BA
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR TOM KIRK
(of Counsel)
Gaby Hardwicke Solicitors
33 The Avenue
Eastbourne
East Sussex
BN21 3YD
For the Respondent MR DANIEL TATTON-BROWN
(One of Her Majesty’s Counsel)
DMH Solicitors
Griffin House
135 High Street
Crawley
RH10 1DQ
UKEAT/0274/18/BA
SUMMARY
VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Detriment
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability related discrimination
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Estoppel or abuse of process
Following a period of long-term sickness absence with depression, and exploration of the
possibility of a return to work, the Claimant was dismissed. At a preliminary hearing (PH) a
dispute about the EDT was determined. A claim of unfair dismissal was then dismissed as out
of time, but time was extended in respect of discrimination claims. At the time of the original
dismissal, the Respondent had offered to p ay the Claimant £4000 as a goodwill payment. That
payment was never made and was later withdrawn. During the c ourse of giving evidence at the
PH, a Director of the Respondent reiterated that offer. In subsequent correspondence it was
stated that this was conditional upon the claims being withdrawn, and no payment was made.
At a full hearing the Employment Tribunal dismissed claims of failure to comply with the duty
of reasonable adjustment, and disability-related discrimination (section 15 Equality Act 2010)
relating to the handling of the sickness a bsence and the dismissal. It also dismissed a claim of
victimisation relating to the non-payment of the £4000 following the PH. The Claimant
appealed in respect of certain of the section 15 complaints and the victimisation complaint.
Held:
(1) The Tribunal had erred in not applying the correct legal test when considering the
victimisation complaint. But that complaint was outwith the scope of section 108
Equality Act 2010 and the evidence given at the PH attracted ju dicial proceedings
immunity. As this was a necessary factual element of the vic timisation complaint, it
was bound to fail and the dismissal of it therefore stood. Derbyshire v St Helens M BC
To continue reading
Request your trial