Miss A Hallett v SP Planning Ltd: 1401588/2022
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Judgment Date | 30 October 2023 |
| Citation | 1401588/2022 |
| Published date | 08 December 2023 |
| Date | 30 October 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
Case No:1401588/2022
10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 62 1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Miss AMY HALLETT
Respondent: SP PLANNING LIMITED
Heard at: Bristol On: 16th – 19th October 2023
Before: Employment Judge David Hughes
Mrs V Blake
Ms J Cusack
Representation
Claimant: In person (assisted by her father)
Respondent: Allan Roberts, counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The Claimant’s complaint of a detriment contrary to Reg 19 of the
Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999, reg 19, insofar as it
concerns an allegation of not offering the Claimant appropriate support to
become a member of the RTPI was not presented within the applicable
time limit. It was reasonably practicable to do so. The Tribunal therefore
lacks jurisdiction to consider that element of the Claimant’s claim.
2. The Claimant’s complaint that she was not offered appropriate support
to become a member of the RTPI, insofar as it is made under the Equality
Act 2010, ss18, was not presented within the applicable time limit, but it is
just and equitable to extend the time limit.
3. The Claimant’s claim for automatic unfair dismissal, contrary to the
Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations, reg19, is not well-founded and
is dismissed.
Case No:1401588/2022
10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 62 2
4. The Claimant’s claim that she was subjected to a detriment contrary to
the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999, reg 19, to the extent
that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider it, is not well-founded and is
dismissed.
5. The Claimant’s claim that she suffered Pregnancy and Maternity
Discrimination contrary to the Equality Act 2010, s18, is not well-founded
and is dismissed.
6. The Claimant’s claim that the Respondent failed to make reasonable
adjustments, contrary to the Equality Act 2010, ss21 & 21, is not well-
founded and is dismissed.
7. The Claimant’s claim for victimisation, contrary to the Equality Act
2010, s27, is not well-founded and is dismissed.
8. The Claimant’s claim for wrongful dismissal is not well-founded and is
dismissed.
REASONS
Who everyone is
1. The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a graduate planner
from 03.05.2021 to 30.05.2022. The Respondent is a small planning
consultancy business. Although it has a business address in London, it
operates primarily from premises in Cheltenham and Gloucester.
2. In the ET1, the Claimant said that the Respondent employed 12 people. In
the evidence before us, it was said that it employed 14 people when the
Claimant worked for it. Although exact numbers fluctuated over time, they
were in this range. Apart from an office manager and a marketing person,
all other staff were planning professionals of some sort, although not all
were members of the Royal Town Planning Institute. The Respondent can
fairly be described as a small business.
Case No:1401588/2022
10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 62 3
3. The managing director of the Respondent was and remains Simon Firkins.
Although others held the title “director” within the business, they were not
statutory company directors. In the course of the hearing, we heard
evidence from Mr Firkins, from Becky Brown, who was the Claimant’s line
manager and is a chartered planning consultant, Paul Jenkins, another
chartered planning consultant, and Elizabeth Shield. Ms Shield said in her
statement that she was formerly a planning consultant with the
Respondent, but at the time of her statement was working for a firm of
solicitors. However, she also said that she would be rejoining the
Respondent in October 2023. Whether she had done so by the time of the
hearing was not addressed, and we think nothing turns on this.
4. The Claimant had, in the past, been employed by the Nationwide Building
Society, in a managerial role. We were not told the exact dates of this, and
it does not matter for this dispute. She is also a shareholder (1%) and a
director of Poulsom Design Services Ltd. This company trades under the
name “Poulsom Architectural Design and Planning Services”, or so
describes itself on documents we have seen, and will be referred to as
“Poulsom”.
5. Poulsom is run by a Mr Russell Poulsom, who is the Claimant’s partner.
Both he and the Claimant have been statutory directors of Poulsom since
it was incorporated.
What the claim is about
6. The Case Management Order (“CMO”) dealt with in greater detail below
states, that, by a Claim Form dated 10.05.2022, subsequently amended,
she brought the following claims:
a) Automatic unfair dismissal contrary to the Maternity and Parental
Leave Regulations 1999;
b) Being subject to detriment contrary to the Maternity and Parental
Leave Regulations 1999;
c) Discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy and /or maternity etc.
contrary to section 18 of the Equality Act 2010;
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting