Mr Cowie v Vesuvius plc and others: 2202735/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 January 2022 |
| Date | 21 January 2022 |
| Citation | 2202735/2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 08 February 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Public Interest Disclosure |
Case Number: 2202735/2021
- 1 -
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
BETWEEN
Claimant AND Respondents
Mr Cowie (1) Vesuvius Plc
(2) Agnieszka Tomczak
(3) Patrick Andre
(4) Vesuvius Holdings Limited
Heard at: London Central Employment Tribunal
On: 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 October 2021
(8 November, 9, 10, 16 December 2021, in chambers)
Before: Employment Judge Adkin
Dr V Weerasinghe
Ms Zofia Darmas
Representations
For the Claimant: Mr J Susskin, Counsel
For the Respondent: Ms S Belgrove, Counsel
JUDGMENT
(1) The following claims are dismissed on withdrawal:
a. All claims of direct race discrimination;
b. All claims of harassment related to race;
c. allegations 1 and 2 with regard to each previously pleaded cause of
action (section 111 Equality Act 2010).
(2) The Tribunal has no jurisdiction in respect of the following claims which
were brought out of time, did not form part of a continuing act and in
respect of which the Tribunal has not exercised its discretion to extend
time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”):
Case Number: 2202735/2021
- 2 -
a. Direct age discrimination (allegations 4, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15);
b. Harassment relating to age (allegations 8, 9, 12);
c. Instructing, causing, inducing contravention of the EqA pursuant to
section 111 (allegations 5, 6, 7, 12).
(3) The following claims succeed against the employer Fourth Respondent:
a. The claim of unfair dismissal brought pursuant to section 98 of the
Employment Rights Act 1996;
b. The claim of direct age discrimination pursuant to section 39 of the
Equality Act 2010 succeeds in respect of allegation 18 (decision to
dismiss);
c. Claims of protected disclosure detriment pursuant to section 47B of
the Employment Rights Act 1996 (allegations 19, 20, 21, 23, 27);
d. Claims of victimisation pursuant to section 27 of the Equality Act 2010
(allegations 19, 20, 21, 23, 27).
(4) The following claims succeed against the Second Respondent Agnieszka
Tomczak:
a. Claims of protected disclosure detriment (allegations 19, 20, 21, 23)
pursuant to section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996;
b. Claims of victimisation pursuant to section 27 of the Equality Act 2010
(allegations 19, 20, 21, 23).
(5) The following claims succeed against the Third Respondent Patrick Andre:
a. The claim of direct age discrimination pursuant to section 39 of the
Equality Act 2010 succeeds in respect of allegation 18 (decision to
dismiss);
b. Claims of protected disclosure detriment pursuant to section 47B of
the Employment Rights Act 1996 (allegation 27);
c. Claims of victimisation pursuant to section 27 of the Equality Act 2010
(allegation 27).
(6) The following claims succeed against the First Respondent as agent for the
Fourth Respondent:
a. Claims of protected disclosure detriment (allegations 19, 20, 21, 23,
27) pursuant to section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996;
b. Claims of victimisation pursuant to section 27 of the Equality Act 2010
(allegations 19, 20, 21, 23, 27).
(7) All remaining claims fail and are dismissed, in particular:
a. All remaining claims of age related harassment pursuant to section 26
of the Equality Act 2010;
b. The claim of indirect age discrimination pursuant to section 19 of the
Equality Act 2010;
Case Number: 2202735/2021
- 3 -
c. Remaining claims of victimisation pursuant to section 27 of the
Equality Act 2010;
d. Remaining claims of protected disclosure detriment to section 47B of
the Employment Rights Act 1996.
REASONS
Procedural matters
1. This hearing was fully remote in the sense that all parties, witnesses and the
members of the Tribunal joined by CVP from separate locations.
2. For reasons that were given orally, the Tribunal made the following decisions:
2.1. that a bundle labelled “supplementary bundle” relied upon by the Claimant,
containing 780 pages of documents that were largely slightly less redacted
than versions already in the bundle should be admitted into evidence;
2.2. a refusal of the Respondents’ application for a “confidential bundle” to be
subject of an order under rule 50 such that it could be referred to “in
camera” during the course of the hearing to exclude public scrutiny;
2.3. in relation to documents identified as C93, C103 – that name of a client
should be part redacted, that the names of colleagues should not be
redacted but amounts in potential settlement negotiations should be
redacted;
3. The hearing was listed for 14 days. Unfortunately due to constraints on judicial
resources, only 10 days were available for a live hearing. We are grateful to
both Counsel for working pragmatically with this reduced timetable in the
arrangement of witnesses and for substituting two sets of written submissions
for an oral submission stage. It is partly because of this contracted timetable
and constraints on the diaries of the members of the Tribunal panel that it has
taken longer than might be ideal to promulgate this decision. The panel
required four deliberation days during the course of November and December
2021, which unfortunately could not run on consecutive days.
4. By an email dated 25 October 2021, in order to assist the Tribunal by narrowing
the issues, the Claimant discontinued each and every claim of direct race
discrimination, each and every claim of harassment related to race, and
detriments 1 and 2 with regard to each previously pleaded cause of action. The
Tribunal is grateful to the Claimant and his advisers for taking a realistic view
of these parts of the claim and focusing on stronger parts of the claim.
To continue reading
Request your trial