Miss N Agada v LPC Law Ltd: 3201983/2019

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date20 September 2021
Date20 September 2021
Citation3201983/2019
CourtEmployment Tribunal
Published date06 October 2021
Subject MatterPublic Interest Disclosure
Case Number: 3201983/2019
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Miss N Agada
Respondent: LPC Law Limited
Heard at: East London Hearing Centre
On: 18 & 19 March 2021
Before: Employment Judge John Crosfill
Representation
Claimant: Mr Jon Ludford-Thomas a Solicitor from Farore Law
Respondent: Ms Laura Prince of Counsel instructed by the Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. The Claimant was a worker for the purposes of sections 230(3)(b) of the
Employment Rights Act 1996 and Regulation 2 of the Working Time
Regulations 1998 and in employment for the purposes of section 82 of the
Equality Act 2010.
REASONS
1. By an ET1 presented on 19 August 2019 the Claimant had presented claims:
1.1. That she had been subjected to a detriment because she had made
protected disclosures brought under Sections 47B and 48 of the
Employment Rights Act 1996; and
1.2. That she had been discriminated against because of pregnancy or
maternity leave contrary to Sections 18 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010;
and
Case Number: 3201983/2019
2
1.3. That the Respondent had failed to allow her to take paid annual leave
under the Working Time Regulations 1998.
2. At a case management hearing on 16 December 2019 EJ Mclaren ordered that the
issue of whether the Claimant’s employment status permitted her to bring the claims
identified should be dealt with at a preliminary hearing. The matter was first listed on
7 May 2020. As a result of the Covid pandemic that hearing was converted to a
preliminary hearing for case management purposes only. On that date EJ Gardiner
decided that 2 days would be necessary to determine the issue of employment
status. The parties were both complaining about the other’s failure to give disclosure
of documents. EJ Gardiner made orders that were intended to resolve any
outstanding disagreements and to allow the parties to properly prepare for the
adjourned hearing. The matter was listed for a 2-day hearing commencing on 11
November 2020. On 15 September 2019 EJ Gardiner made orders without a hearing
on the parties cross applications for specific disclosure. He ordered the Claimant to
provide documents relating to any work that she had done for third parties whilst
engaged by the Respondent.
3. The hearing on 11 November 2020 was listed before EJ Lewis. The Claimant told
EJ Lewis that she did not have the bundle of documents that had been prepared by
the Respondent. She said that because of her disabilities she needed paper copies.
The matter was adjourned once again. The Claimant had not at that stage complied
with the orders of EJ Gardiner. EJ Lewis recorded in her case management summary
that the Claimant was in breach of the orders that had been made by EJ Gardiner
and she made fresh orders requiring the Claimant to comply by 14 December 2020.
It appears that the Claimant had attempted to reargue the question of whether she
ought to provide the documents ordered by EJ Gardiner before EJ Lewis. The matter
was relisted for 18 & 19 March 2021.
4. By a letter sent under cover of an e-mail sent on 28 December 2020 the Claimant
asked EJ Lewis to vary the orders she had made. I do not need to deal with all of the
matters referred to by the Claimant in that letter. It is sufficient to say that the
Claimant asked for an extension of time to comply with the order that she provides
disclosure. She had by then had some months to comply. EJ Lewis declined to vary
the order in respect of disclosure and made an order under rule 38 of the
Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Procedure) Regulations 2013. That order
provided that unless the Claimant complied with the order of EJ Gardiner by 24
February 2021 the claim would be struck out.
5. On 23 February 2021 the Claimant applied to set aside or vary the unless order. The
Claimant made wide ranging and generally misguided criticisms of EJ Gardiner and
EJ Lewis. She did not say that she had actually provided the disclosure ordered by
EJ Gardiner. She suggested that she had applied for a reconsideration of EJ
Gardiner’s order. Whether she had, or had not, she had not complied with it.
6. On 24 February 2021, before the unless order took effect, EJ Lewis issued an order
staying the unless order that she had made. Her order was expressed in the following
terms:

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT