Mr C Stewart v SSE Generation Ltd: 4107395/2020
| Judgment Date | 09 June 2021 |
| Citation | 4107395/2020 |
| Published date | 15 June 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
E.T. Z4 (WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: 4107395/2020
5
Held by CVP on 14 May 2021
Employment Judge McManus
10
Mr Craig Stewart Claimant
In person
15
SSE Generation Limited Respondent
Represented by:
20
Mr Meechan,
Solicitor
PRELIMINARY HEARING DECISION
25
Decision
1. The ET1 is amended in terms of the claimant’s Answers to the Order
issued with Note from the Preliminary Hearing of 29 January 2021.
2. The claims of disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 are not
timebarred.
30
3. The claim of victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 is
struck out as having no reasonable prospect so success.
4. The following claims proceed to a Final Hearing (unless withdrawn by the
claimant):-
4107395/2020 Page 2
• Unfair dismissal
• Disability Discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 section 13
• Disability Discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 section 15
• Disability Discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 section 19
5
• Disability Discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 section 21
• Disability Discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 section 26
5. Any application for expenses will be considered following the conclusion
of the Final Hearing.
10
REASONS
Background
1. There have previously been two Preliminary Hearings in this case conducted
by telephone for the purposes of case management (Telephone Case
Management Preliminary Hearings (‘TCMPH’)). These took place on
15
29 January 2021 and 15 March 2021. The Note issued after each TCMPH
is in the Joint Bundle produced for this Hearing, at pages 58 - 65 and 85 -89
respectively.
2. At the TCMPH on 29 January 2021, the claimant was directed to answer a
number of questions, set out in an Order. Those questions were put to the
20
claimant at the respondent’s representative’s request. He did so in his
Answers to Questions which is now at pages 66 – 79 of the Joint Bundle.
3. Following receipt of those Answers, it was the respondent’s representative’s
position, as set out in their email of 9 March 2021 (page 80 – 83), that new
claims were being brought in those Answers.
25
4. Following the TCMPH on 15 March 2021, this Preliminary Hearing (‘PH’) was
arranged to determine the following preliminary issues:-
4107395/2020 Page 3
(1) whether the claimant should be permitted to amend his claim so as
to incorporate the answers given by him to the questions order and
make a claim of disability discrimination as set out therein,
(2) whether, if the claimant is so permitted to amend his claim, all or
part of the claim should be dismissed as being time barred,
5
(3) whether, if the claimant is permitted to amend his claim, the claim of
disability discrimination should be struck out in whole or in part on
the basis that it is misconceived and/or has no reasonable prospect
of success.
5. In the Note issued following the TCMPH in March 2021, the claimant was
10
directed to section 123 of the Equality Act 2020 and reference was made to
the cases of Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore and British Coal Co Ltd v Keeble
being relevant to the issues for determination at this PH.
6. It was confirmed to the parties by email from the Tribunal dated 6 April 2021
that the only proposed amendment being considered at this PH was the
15
claimant’s answers to the questions order, now being in the Joint Bundle at
66 – 79. It was the respondent’s representative’s position that the ET1 form
does not contain a claim in respect of harassment or victimisation.
7. In summary, it is the respondent’s position that no claim for disability
discrimination (or harassment or victimisation) was brought in the ET1, that
20
the claims of disability discrimination brought in the proposed amendment
(being the claimant’s Answers to the Order) are time barred and lacking in
specification and that amendment in those terms should not be allowed,
failing which the disability discrimination claims should be struck out. It is
accepted that the unfair dismissal claim was brought within the relevant time
25
period, with regard to the extension provided by the issue of the ACAS EC
Certificate.
8. In summary, it is the claimant’s position that claims of disability discrimination
and unfair dismissal were brought in the ET1 and that the relevant date for
calculation of the time period within which the claims of disability
30
To continue reading
Request your trial