Miss N Mokrani v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd: 1300662/2017
| Judgment Date | 02 August 2017 |
| Citation | 1300662/2017 |
| Published date | 16 August 2017 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Public Interest Disclosure |
Case Number 1300662/2017
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
BETWEEN
Claimant AND Respondent
Miss N Mokrani Jaguar Land
Rover Limited
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
(RESERVED JUDGMENT)
HELD AT Birmingham ON 9 May 2017
EMPLOYMENT JUDGE GASKELL
Representation
For the Claimant: In Person
For Respondent: Mr T Sadiq (Counsel)
Interpreter: Ms AC de Sousa Mendes de Vale (French)
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the tribunal is that:
1 The claimant’s application for interim relief is refused.
2 Pursuant to Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of
Procedure 2013, the claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal is struck out as
having no reasonable prospect of success.
3 Pursuant to Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of
Procedure 2013, the claimant’s claim for age discrimination is struck out
as having no reasonable prospect of success.
4 The claimant’s application for the response to be struck out is refused.
5 The claimant’s application to amend the claim to include claims of sex
and/or race discrimination and/or detriment is refused.
REASONS
Introduction
1 The claimant in this case is Miss Nawal Mokrani who was employed by
the respondent, Jaguar Land Rover Limited, as a Senior Engineer from 5
October 2015 until 17 February 2017 when she was dismissed. The
contemporaneous reason given for the claimant’s dismissal was gross
misconduct.
Case Number 1300662/2017
2
2 By a claim form presented to the tribunal on 24 February 2017, the
claimant claims that her dismissal was unfair - and automatically so, pursuant to
the provisions of Section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA). The
claimant recognises that she is not time-served to bring a claim for unfair
dismissal pursuant to the provisions of Section 98 ERA; the claim form also
contained a claim for unlawful age discrimination. Having brought a claim for
unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures, the claimant also seeks interim
relief to prevent her dismissal having effect pending the trial of her claims.
3 The respondent admits that the claimant was dismissed: but maintains
that she was dismissed for a reason relating to her conduct; and that the
dismissal was lawful and fair. The respondent does not admit that the claimant
made any protected disclosures such that Section 103A (ERA) is engaged; the
respondent denies any discrimination. The respondent resists the claim for
interim relief. In the response form, the respondent also included an assertion
that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the age discrimination
claim because of the absence of an ACAS Conciliation Certificate in respect of
that claim. (The respondent does accept that the tribunal has jurisdiction to hear
the unfair dismissal claim in the absence of such a certificate because of the
ancillary claim for interim relief.)
4 Following receipt of the response form, Employment Judge Camp directed
that there should be an Open Preliminary Hearing (OPH) to consider and
determine the following issues: -
(a) The application for interim relief.
(b) The respondent’s application for the claims to be struck out as having no
reasonable prospect of success.
(c) Whether there should be a deposit order.
5 The OPH came on for hearing before Employment Judge Dean on 27
April 2017: she adjourned the hearing for lack of time; but enlarged the scope of
the hearing to include the following: -
(a) The claimant’s application for the response to be struck out as having no
reasonable prospect of success; and/or whether the respondent should be
ordered to pay a deposit.
(b) The claimant’s application to amend her claim to include claims of sex
and/or race discrimination; and claims for protected disclosure detriments.
6 Employment Judge Dean directed that today’s hearing should proceed
without oral evidence or cross examination. In considering the claims, the tribunal
would take the claimant’s case at its height; and in considering any necessary
response, the tribunal would likewise take the respondent’s case at its height.
To continue reading
Request your trial