Miss S Nomberg v Benny P Ltd: 2205240/2019
| Judgment Date | 20 October 2020 |
| Citation | 2205240/2019 |
| Published date | 05 November 2020 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case Number: 2205240/2019
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
Miss S Nomberg
v
Benny P Limited
Heard at: London Central On: 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
September 2020
Before: Employment Judge A James
Ms S Plummer, Mr R Pell
Representation
For the Claimant: Mrs M Smith, solicitor
For the Respondent: Mr L Wilson, counsel
JUDGMENT
1) The claim for unfair dismissal (section 95 Employment Rights Act 1996)
does not succeed and is dismissed
2) The claim for breach of contract (Employment Tribunals Extension of
Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994) does not succeed and is
dismissed.
3) The claims for disability discrimination (sections 15, 20, and 26 Equality Act
2010) do not succeed and are dismissed.
4) The claim for unauthorised deductions of wages (section 23 Employment
Rights Act 1996) and the employer’s counterclaim (Employment Tribunals
Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994) cannot be
determined without hearing further evidence and are to be re-listed for
hearing, together with any remedy issues which may subsequently arise.
REASONS
The issues
1. The claims were for unpaid wages, breach of contract, unfair dismissal and
disability discrimination. The issues are set out in Annex A to this judgment. At
Case Number: 2205240/2019
2
the outset of the hearing we asked the representatives if these were the issues
we were being asked to decide. It was confirmed that they were.
The proceedings
2. The hearing took place over five days, with the parties attending on the first four
days. We heard from the claimant and from a witness called on her behalf, Ms
Hila Anav who worked as a bookkeeper/project manager for the respondent.
For the respondent we heard from Mr Assaf Laznik, beneficial owner of Findon
Homes (UK) Limited, Mr David Pollock, Director, Mr Benjamin Pollock, Director,
Mr Marc Meltzer, a shareholder of one of the group companies, Mr Suresh
Mupparthi, who worked as a Project Manager, and Ms Alona Balashova, who
worked for Septentrium, a company that provided payroll and other services to
Findon Homes UK Limited. There was a hearing bundle which ran to over 1800
pages.
3. An application was made for the tribunal to hear the evidence of Mr Laznik, Mr
Mupparthi and Ms Balashova remotely. The application was granted.
4. There was also an application that Mr Laznik be allowed to join the whole of the
proceedings remotely. That application was refused, on the basis that to allow
that would slow down the proceedings significantly. The tribunal’s practical
experience of running hearings on a hybrid basis is that all those present in the
tribunal room need to turn off their microphones and sound, apart from the
person speaking. Then if another person intervenes, they need to turn on their
microphone and speakers whilst the person who had been speaking turn off
theirs. The time spent doing so soon adds up, which increases the length of the
proceedings. Given the number of witnesses we needed to hear from, then in
order to complete the hearing in time, it was not practical to allow Mr Laznik to
join the proceedings the whole of the time. Further, the hearing had been
arranged on dates when Mr Laznik had said he would be in the UK. We did
however indicate to Mr Wilson that if he could take instructions overnight from
Mr Laznik, on evidence presented by the claimant, an opportunity would be
provided to recall her so further questions could be put in cross examination. In
the end, that was not necessary.
5. On the third day an application was made by Mrs Smith to admit in evidence a
letter from the claimant’s counsellor dated 24 August 2020. Mr Wilson took a
pragmatic view and did not oppose that but its relevance was questioned, and
the weight we decided to attach to it was much reduced since it was not formally
put to any relevant witnesses. Finally, an application was made to recall the
Claimant to answer questions in cross examination about her Linked-In profile.
That was not opposed by Mrs Smith and the tribunal agreed the application.
6. On the final day, the tribunal deliberated in chambers and reached its decision.
Judgment was reserved.
Facts
Commencement of employment – 10 March 2016
7. The claimant commenced employment with the Respondent on 10 March 2016.
She worked as an Office Administrator and Personal Assistant to the Directors
on a salary of £30,000. Her salary was subsequently increased to £33,000.
To continue reading
Request your trial