Dr M Tattersall v Liverpool Womens Hospital NHS Trust and Liverpool University: 2402518/2015
| Judgment Date | 15 April 2019 |
| Citation | 2402518/2015 |
| Published date | 04 September 2018 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Public Interest Disclosure |
RESERVED
Case No. 2402518/2015
2405561/2013
2405298/2012
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant:
Dr Tattersall
Respondents:
(1) Liverpool Womens Hospital NHS Trust
(2) Liverpool University
HELD AT:
Liverpool
ON:
12- 31 January 2018
1-9, 15-16 February 2018
8-9, 15 March 2018
9-10, 13, 18 April 2018 (in
chambers)
BEFORE:
MEMBERS:
Employment Judge Shotter
Mr M Gelling
Mr P Gates
REPRESENTATION:
Claimant:
Respondent 1 & 2:
Mr Mensah, counsel
Mr Boyd, counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: -
1. The claimant was given leave to adduce in evidence the handwriting expert report
prepared by Margaret Webb dated 5 February 2018. It was not just and equitable
and in accordance with the overriding objective to grant the claimant leave to
commission a further expert report and his application for leave is refused.
RESERVED
Case No. 2402518/2015
2405561/2013
2405298/2012
2
2. The claimant was not unfairly dismissed and his claim for unfair dismissal brought
against the first and second respondent is not well-founded and is dismissed.
3. The claimant was not automatically unfairly dismissed and his claim for automatic
unfair dismissal brought under Section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996
against the first and second respondent is not well-founded and is dismissed.
4. The claimant was not subjected to any detriments on the ground that he had made
protected disclosures under Section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the
claim for detriments brought against the first and second respondent are not well-
founded and dismissed.
5. Detriments 23 and 29 were not presented before the end of the period of 3 months
beginning with the date of the act or failure to act to which the complaint relates, or,
where the act or failure to act is part of a series of similar acts, the last such act or
failure to act. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was reasonably practicable for a
complaint to be presented before the end of that period of 3 months, the Tribunal
does not have the jurisdiction to consider the complaints which are dismissed.
6.The first Respondent did not deprive the claimant of the right to be accompanied
under Section 10 Employment Relations Act 1999.
7. The alleged acts of disability discrimination occurring before or on 6 December
2012 were not lodged within the statutory time limit of 3-months, the claim was not
presented within such other period as the Tribunal thinks just and equitable, it is not
just and equitable to extend time and the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to
consider those complaints which are dismissed
8. The first respondent did not unlawfully discriminate against the claimant under
Section13 by treating him less favourably than a hypothetical comparator on the
grounds of his disability, the claimant’s claims for direct disability discrimination and
disability related discrimination brought under Sections 13 and 15 of the Equality Act
2010 are not well-founded and are dismissed.
9. The First Respondent did not engage in unwanted conduct related to the
claimant’s disability, the claimant’s complaint of harassment brought under Section
26 of the Equality Act 2010 is not well-founded and is dismissed.
10. Detriments 1 and 2 claimed under Section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 were not
presented within the statutory limitation period, they were not presented within such
other period as the Tribunal thinks just and equitable, it is not just and equitable to
extend the time limit and the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to consider those
complaints, which are dismissed.
11. The Claimant raised protected acts numbered 4 to 6 to satisfy the requirements
of Section 27(2) of the Equality Act 2010 within the statutory time limit and the
Tribunal has the jurisdiction to consider detriment 3.
RESERVED
Case No. 2402518/2015
2405561/2013
2405298/2012
3
12. The First Respondent did not subject the Claimant to a detriment because he
had done or might to a protected act or because the First Respondent believed that
the Claimant had done or might do such an act and the claimant’s complaint of
victimisation brought under Section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 is not well-founded
and is dismissed.
13. The claimant’s claim for unpaid accrued holiday pay brought under Regulation 13
of the Working Time Regulations 1998 is not well-founded and is dismissed.
14. The claimant’s claim for a redundancy payment is dismissed upon withdrawal.
15. The First Respondent failed to issue the Claimant with a statement of main terms
and particulars of employment in accordance with Section1 of the Employment
Rights Act 1996.
REASONS
Preamble
The pleadings
1. By three claim forms received on 21 June 2012 (claim 2405298/2012), 10
May 2013 (claim 2405561/2013 and 6 March 2015, (claim 2402518/2015) the
claimant brings the following complaints:
1.1 2405298/2012 - failure to provide a written statement of terms of employment and
a declaration of whether the claimant’s written contract enables the respondent
to request “medical documentation/tests that are in excess of those required by
the Department of Health Guidance…[relying] on ‘local policy’…not specifically
provided for in writing, relying upon an occupational health questionnaire.
Discrimination and/or victimisation due to the claimant “requesting union input
into this procedure, for attempting to exert statutory rights” and unlawful
deduction of wages. These claims were further clarified in a letter dated 17
December 2012 that referred also to detriment under the PIDA and age
discrimination.
1.2 In a Scott schedule dated 5 March 2013 the claimant included claims of age and
disability discrimination, detriment under PIDA, detriment arising out of
“requesting of trade union assistance/representation and detriment for asserting a
statutory right”.
1.3 2405561/2013 - the claimant alleged that his exclusion on 27 November 2012
may be a breach of contract following a binding agreement reached between the
parties that an investigation would not take place. He claimed disability
To continue reading
Request your trial