Mr C Kelly v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd: 3315272/2020
| Judgment Date | 21 February 2022 |
| Citation | 3315272/2020 |
| Date | 21 February 2022 |
| Published date | 14 March 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Breach of Contract |
Case Number: 3315272/2020
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
Mr C Kelly
v
Sainsbury
’
s Supermar
kets Ltd
Heard at: Norwich (by CVP)
On: 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 January 2022
14 February 2022 (In chambers – no parties present)
Before: Employment Judge M Warren
Members: Ms AE Brown and Mr S Holford
Appearances
For the Claimant: Mr L Varnam, Counsel.
For the Respondent: Ms G Crew, Counsel.
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The Claimant’s claim of wrongful dismissal fails and is dismissed.
2. The Claimant’s claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination
succeed.
3. The remedy to which the Claimant is entitled shall be determined at a
remedy hearing by CVP on 20 May 2022. Case management orders in
respect of the remedy hearing appear in a separate order of today’s date.
REASONS
Background
1. Mr Kelly’s employment with the respondent began on 27 March 2000 and
ended on 31 July 2020. After early conciliation between 12 October and
26 November 2020, he issued these proceedings claiming
unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and disability discrimination on
21 December 2020.
Case Number: 3315272/2020
2
2. The matter came before Employment Judge Sharkett for case
management at a preliminary hearing on 21 July 2021. At that hearing,
the respondent conceded that Mr Kelley was disabled. EJ Sharkett
identified the issues (see below), made case management orders and
listed the case for a three day hearing by CVP commencing
19 January 2022. As a result of correspondence received from the
parties, 17 and 18 January 2022 were added to the listing.
3. We commenced the hearing on the morning of Monday 17 January 2022
and adjourned to do our preliminary reading. I had a medical appointment
in the afternoon but no time was lost and we commenced hearing the
evidence on the morning of Tuesday 18 January 2022.
4. We concluded hearing oral submissions from the representatives on the
morning of day five, 21 January 2022 and convened in chambers to
conclude our discussions on Monday 14 February 2022.
The Evidence
5. We had before us a witness statement from Mr Kelly and for the
respondent, we had witness statements from the investigating officer
Mr Hunter, from the disciplinary officer Mr Speke and from the appeal
officer Ms Richardson.
6. We were provided with a properly paginated bundle of documents in pdf
format running to page number 410.
7. At the outset of the hearing, we read the witness statements and read or
looked at, in our discretion, the documents referred to in the witness
statements.
8. We heard oral evidence from each of the witnesses except for Mr Hunter.
We were asked to place such weight on the witness statement evidence of
Mr Hunter as we considered appropriate, having regard to the fact that he
was not here to have his evidence tested under oath, which we did.
9. We had a chronology and a cast list provided by Ms Crew, for which we
were grateful.
The Issues
10. The issues in this case were identified by Employment Judge Sharkett at a
preliminary hearing on 21 July 2021, set out in a hearing summary sent to
the parties on 14 August 2021 as follows:
Unfair dismissal
4.1 What was the principal reason for dismissal and was it a p otentially fair one in accordance
with sections 98(1) and (2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”)? Th e
respondent asserts that it was a reason relating to the cla imant’s conduct.
To continue reading
Request your trial