Miss M Manjula v Immigration and Nationality Services Ltd and IANS Solicitors Ltd: 3310860/2022
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 December 2023 |
| Date | 03 December 2023 |
| Citation | 3310860/2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 05 January 2024 |
| Subject Matter | Breach of Contract |
Case Number: - 3310860/2022.
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
Miss Mayuri Manjula v
(1) Immigration and Nationality
Services Limited; and
(2) IANS Solicitors Limited
Heard at: Cambridge (by CVP)
On: 17, 18, 19 and 20 July 2023
23 and 24 October 2023
In Chambers: 25 October 2023
Before: Employment Judge L Brown
Members: Ms L Gaywood and Mr Rob Allan
Appearances
For the Claimant: In person
For the Respondent: Mr Hoyle, HR Consultant
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The Claim for Unfair Dismissal, against the Second Respondent contrary to
s.94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”), succeeds.
2. The Claim for Wrongful Dismissal against the Second Respondent
succeeds.
3. The Claim for Unauthorised Deductions from Wages, in relation to unpaid
wages, contrary to s.13 of the ERA 1996, against the Second Respondent
succeeds.
4. The Claim for Direct Race Discrimination on the grounds of race, contrary
to s.13 of the Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”) against the Second Respondent,
succeeds.
5. The Claim for a Failure to Provide a Statement of Particulars, contrary to s.
38 of the ERA 1996, against the Second Respondent succeeds.
Case Number: - 3310860/2022.
2
6. The Claim for Indirect Race Discrimination contrary to s.19 EqA 2010, against
the First and Second Respondent fails.
7. All remaining claims against the First Respondent are dismissed.
REASONS
Introduction
8. This matter, in terms of what took place at the Preliminary Hearing on the 21
April 2023, and at the First and Second adjourned Final Hearing, has a most
complicated procedural history which will be summarised below.
The Claims
9. By way of an ET1 claim filed on the 18 August 2022 the Claimant brought
claims for Unfair Dismissal, Wrongful Dismissal, Unauthorised Deductions from
Wages, Indirect Race Discrimination, and a Failure to Provide a Statement of
Particulars of Employment. At the date of her dismissal, she was employed by
the Second Respondent.
10. On the 29 September 2022 the First and Second Respondent filed their ET3
form denying all claims.
The Case Management Hearing on the 21 April 2023
11. A preliminary hearing for case management took place by CVP on the 1 April
2023. The Case Management Order of Employment Judge Brady (“the Brady
CMO”), arising from a Case Management Hearing which took place on 21 April
2023, summarised the issues in dispute in this case.
12. The Brady CMO set out the following claims and issues’ although some
paragraphs were identified (as underlined below) in the Brady CMO as not being
in dispute. In addition, this Tribunal also dealt with and allowed the addition of a
claim, at the outset of the hearing, for Direct Race Discrimination, and that is set
out and underlined at paragraph 6.2 below. The detail of this additional claim
being added is dealt with in detail later in this Judgement.
Brady List of Issues with additional claim of Direct Race Discrimination
added by this Tribunal: -
The Complaints
44. The claimant is making the following complaints:
Case Number: - 3310860/2022.
3
44.0 Unfair dismissal
44.1 Indirect Race Discrimination
44.2 Unlawful Deduction of Wages
44.3 Notice Pay
44.4 The Claimant also states that she has not received Terms and
Conditions of Employment and claims under section 38 of the
Employment Act 2002.
The Issues
45. The issues the Tribunal will decide are set out below.
1. Employment status
1.1 Was the Claimant an employee of the Respondents within the
meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996? The
Respondent does not dispute this.
1.2 Was the Claimant an employee of the Respondents within the
meaning of section 83 of the Equality Act 2010? The Respondent does
not dispute this.
1.3 Were the Respondents associated employers under section 218(6)
of the ERA 1996. (The Respondents accepts that the Claimant was
employed by Respondents 2 when her employment ended)
2. Time limits
2.1 Given the date the claim form was presented and the dates of early
conciliation, any complaint may not have been brought in time. The
Respondents accepts that the claim form was presented within time of
the Claimant leaving the 2nd Respondents employment.
2.2 Was the discrimination complaint made within the time limit in
section 123 of the Equality Act 2010? The Tribunal will decide:
2.2.1 Was the claim made to the Tribunal within three months (plus
early conciliation extension) of the act to which the complaint relates?
2.2.2 If not, was there conduct extending over a period?
2.2.3 If so, was the claim made to the Tribunal within three months
(plus early conciliation extension) of the end of that period?
2.2.4 If not, were the claims made within a further period that the
Tribunal thinks is just and equitable? The Tribunal will decide:
To continue reading
Request your trial