Dr S Shaw v Dr Thakkar and others: 3310240/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 December 2023 |
| Date | 28 December 2023 |
| Citation | 3310240/2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 11 January 2024 |
| Subject Matter | Maternity and Pregnancy Rights |
Case Number: 3310240/2021
1 of 80
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Dr S Shaw
Respondent: Dr Thakkar R1
Dr Caswell R2
Dr Naheed R3
Dr Bargate R4
Partnership known as
“The Bourne End and Wooburn
Green Medical Centre” R5
Heard at: Watford Employment Tribunal (In public; In person)
On: 30, 31 October and 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 November 2023
Before: Employment Judge Quill;
Ms J Hancock;
Mr S Bury
Appearances
For the claimant: Ms S Keogh, counsel
For the respondent: Ms D van den Berg, counsel
JUDGMENT
(1) Complaints based on the factual allegations at paragraph 5.1.9 of the list of issues
are in time. However, those complaints that there was
(i) discrimination within the meaning of section 18 of the Equality Act
2010 (“EQA”),
(ii) direct discrimination because of sex
(iii) victimisation
fail and are dismissed.
(2) Complaints based on the factual allegations at paragraph 5.1.11 of the list of issues
are in time. However, those complaints that there was
(i) discrimination within the meaning of section 18 EQA,
Case Number: 3310240/2021
2 of 80
(ii) direct discrimination because of sex,
(iii) victimisation
fail and are dismissed.
(3) Complaints based on the factual allegations at paragraph 5.1.8 and 5.1.10 of the
list of issues were brought later than the period defined by section 123(1)(a) EQA,
even taking account of section 123(3). We do, however, extend time in each case
in accordance with section 123(1)(b).
(4) The complaints that there was
(i) Pregnancy and maternity discrimination (s18 EQA)
(ii) sex discrimination
(iii) victimisation
based on the factual allegations at paragraph 5.1.8 the list of issues all fail and
are dismissed.
(5) The Claimant was expelled from the partnership within the meaning of the
definition in section 46(6)(b). That expulsion was not pregnancy and maternity
discrimination, sex discrimination or victimisation and the complaints based on
paragraph 5.1.10 of the list of issues therefore all fail and are dismissed.
(6) All of the remaining complaints are out of time, and we do not extend time for them.
They are therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and are dismissed.
(7) In summary, none of the complaints has succeeded.
REASONS
Introduction
1. This was a claim brought by a doctor, a GP, against the former partners with whom
she had been in business.
2. There was agreement between the parties that even after the preliminary hearing,
there were 5 respondents in total, one of which was the partnership itself.
3. It is common ground that R1 was a partner at all relevant times, and that R2 and
R3 were partners at some relevant times. There is a dispute about whether R4
was a partner or not (with the Claimant alleging that she was, and all the
Respondents saying that she was not).
4. Judgment and reasons were given orally during the hearing and written reasons
were requested. These are those written reasons.
Case Number: 3310240/2021
3 of 80
The Hearing and the Evidence
5. This was an 8 day final hearing conducted entirely in person. We had a bundle of
documents (paper and electronically) of 702 pages, and we admitted some, though
not all, of the items from the Claimant’s supplementary bundle.
6. On the first day of the hearing, we allowed some amendments to the claim (having
decided that what the Claimant was requesting was more than an amendment to
the list of issues based on the existing claim form).
7. The Claimant was the only witness on her side. She gave evidence on oath to
confirm the accuracy of her written statement and to answer questions from the
other side and the panel.
8. The Respondents had produced 6 written statements. Dr Uzma Naheed, (“R3”),
did not attend for the reasons communicated to the Claimant and the Tribunal in
writing. The Claimant did not necessarily agree with the contents of R3’s
statement, and invited us to prefer her own evidence where appropriate, but made
clear that, in the circumstances, she was not inviting the Tribunal to draw adverse
inferences from R3’s failure to attend. We read the statement and have given it
such weight as we saw fit.
9. The Respondents’ other witnesses all gave evidence on oath to confirm the
accuracy of their written statements and to answer questions from the other side
and the panel. These were:
9.1 Dr Rajesh Thakkar (“R1”)
9.2 Helen Radcliffe, registered nurse and was the practice manager
9.3 Dr Alison de Souza, salaried GP
9.4 Dr Victoria Bargate (“R4”)
9.5 Dr Elizabeth Casewell (“R2”)
The Issues
10. There had been a preliminary hearing on 29 April 2022 [Bundle 76]. Following our
decision on Day 1 about the amendment, for closing submissions, the parties
produced a jointly agreed list which was:
4. Section 26: Harassment related to sex
4.1. Did the respondents engage in unwanted conduct as follows:
4.1.1. Dr Thakkar’s comments on 26 February 2018 regarding the Claimant’s pregnancy (para. 3
of the Grounds of Complaint (“GOC”));
To continue reading
Request your trial