C v Grampian Health Board and others: 4100490/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 November 2022 |
| Date | 15 November 2022 |
| Published date | 25 November 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 4100490/2021 |
| Subject Matter | Equal Pay Act |
ETZ4(WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: 4100490/2021
5
Final Hearing held at Dundee remotely by Cloud Video Platform on 20, 21,
22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30 September 2022 and 21 October 2022; deliberation
day on 7 November 2022
10
Employment Judge A Kemp
Tribunal Member P Fallow
Tribunal Member L Grime
15
C Claimant
Represented by:
Mr D Flood,
Counsel
Instructed by:
20
Ms C Horsfield,
Senior Paralegal
Grampian Health Board First respondent
Represented by:
25
Mr K McGuire,
Advocate
Instructed by:
Mr A Watson,
Solicitor
30
Tayside Health Board Second respondent
Represented by:
Mr K McGuire,
Advocate
35
Instructed by:
Mr A Watson,
Solicitor
NHS Education for Scotland Third respondent
40
Represented by:
Mr K McGuire,
Advocate
Instructed by:
Mr A Watson,
45
Solicitor
4100490/2021 Page 2
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
1. The unanimous Judgment of the Tribunal is that the Claim does not
succeed, and is dismissed.
2. The Tribunal grants an order under Rule 50 of the Rules of
Procedure within Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals
5
(Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 that the
identity of the claimant shall not be disclosed to the public and that
her name and address, the terms of paragraph 16, and references
to the hospital at which she worked found at paragraphs 17, 44 and
265 shall be redacted from the version of this Judgment entered on
10
the Register maintained under Rule 67. The claimant shall be
identified by the letter “C”.
REASONS
15
Introduction
1. This was the Final Hearing into claims of discrimination on the ground of
disability under sections 15, 20 and 53 of the Equality Act 2010 (“the
2010 Act”), and for unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment
Rights Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”). There have been a number of previous
20
Preliminary Hearings in this case. It included one before EJ Kemp on
26 January 2022, after which an expert report, jointly instructed, on the
issue of disability status was obtained, and the present hearing fixed.
2. The claimant was represented by Mr Flood, and all the respondents by
Mr McGuire. The Tribunal was grateful to both of them for the most
25
helpful and professional manner in which they conducted the hearing,
and for their detailed submissions. It was also grateful to the solicitors
who had co-operated in producing the documentation for the Tribunal,
which included for example a Chronology and a Cast List.
3. The present case is one of particular complexity, in the context of the
30
claimant training to become a Consultant Paediatrician. The evidence
was substantial, involving over 1,700 pages of documentary evidence,
4100490/2021 Page 3
and oral evidence from 10 witnesses on the basis of written witness
statements extending to over 150 pages. Evidence was heard over eight
days, after which the Tribunal acceded to a request from counsel for
more time to prepare their written submissions. Those were exchanged,
and oral submissions heard on 21 October 2022. The Tribunal
5
commenced its deliberations thereafter, and continued them on
7 November 2022.
Preliminary Matters
4. The claimant produced a Schedule of Loss and supporting
documentation, which was received without objection. It sought
10
compensation of a little over £380,000. The claimant also produced
some additional documents late, which again were received without
objection, with the respondent providing one document in response. It
was agreed that the claimant would give her evidence first. There was a
discussion as to adjustments required for her, being for regular breaks,
15
which were allowed when requested.
Issues
5. There was an initial discussion as to the issues in the case. The
respondents were confirmed as the three set out above, and although
there had been reference earlier to the North of Scotland Deanery, that
20
being the entity against which the Claim had been taken before later
particulars were provided which included the present three respondents,
and it was confirmed that there was no claim directed to that entity. It
was further confirmed that the respondents were designed properly as
above. The claimant had provided two sets of Further and Better
25
Particulars, with the latter dated 17 May 2021 being that on which the
claim proceeded. The legal basis of the claim as directed to the third
respondent was confirmed as under sections 53 and 54 of the 2010 Act,
subject to enquiries as to whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction, later
addressed in submission. Jurisdiction was also an issue raised in
30
relation to timebar and again was addressed in submission.
6. The respondents confirmed that the status of the claimant as a disabled
person was not disputed, with the joint report from Dr Woodward not
To continue reading
Request your trial