Mr D Odigie v Renfrewshire Council: 4112445/2019
| Judgment Date | 19 May 2021 |
| Date | 19 May 2021 |
| Published date | 21 April 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Race Discrimination |
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: 4112445/2019 (V)
5
Held in Glasgow on 1 May 2020
(Preliminary Hearing held remotely by Kinly cloud video platform)
Employment Judge Ian McPherson
10
Mr David Odigie Claimant
In Person
15
Renfrewshire Council Respondents
Represented by:
Ms Eilidh Clements-
20
Solicitor
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
25
The Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that:-
(1) Having heard evidence, and thereafter considered parties’ closing
submissions in private deliberation following close of the Preliminary Hearing,
the Tribunal finds that the claim, presented on 9 November 2019, was
presented out of time, but that it is just and equitable, in terms of Section 123
30
of the Equality Act 2010, to extend the time for lodging the claimant’s ET1
claim form with the Tribunal.
(2) In these circumstances, the Tribunal does therefore have jurisdiction to
consider the claimant’s complaint of alleged unlawful direct racial
discrimination against him by the respondents, and the Tribunal refuses the
35
respondents’ application to strike out the claim, under Rule 37 of the
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, as having no reasonable
prospects of success.
4112445/2019 (V) Page 2
(3) Having allowed the claim to proceed, although lodged late, the Tribunal
orders the claim and response to be listed, in due course, for a Final Hearing
before a full Tribunal for full disposal, including remedy, if appropriate, and
instructs the clerk to the Tribunal to issue date listing stencils to both parties
for that purpose, with a view to a Final Hearing to be held, on dates to be
5
hereinafter fixed by the Tribunal, within the proposed listing period of
October, November or December 2020.
(4) When responding to the date listing stencils, the Tribunal further orders that
both parties shall advise the Tribunal whether they are content for that Final
Hearing to proceed by way of video evidence from both parties, again using
10
the Kinly cloud video platform, and after the preparation and mutual exchange
of witness statements prior to the start of that Final Hearing, or whether,
instead, they seek to have an in-person Hearing at the Glasgow Employment
Tribunal, and, if so, to clarify whether with or without the use of witness
statements.
15
(5) Further, the Tribunal orders that the respondents’ solicitor shall, within no
more than 28 days from date of issue of this Judgment, lodge with the
Tribunal, by email, with copy sent at the same time to the claimant, detailed
grounds of resistance to the merits of the claim brought against them, by way
of further and better particulars fully answering the claimant’s complaint, as
20
set forth in the ET1 claim form, and so augmenting the ET3 response
previously lodged with the Tribunal in skeletal form, denying the
discrimination allegation, but otherwise only addressing the time-bar
argument.
(6) The Tribunal also orders that the claimant shall, within no more than 28
25
days from date of issue of this Judgment, lodge with the Tribunal, by
email, with copy sent at the same time to the respondents’ solicitor, a detailed
Schedule of Loss setting forth the amount of compensation he seeks from the
respondents, in the event that his complaint against them is to be upheld by
the Tribunal after determination at a Final Hearing, together with an
30
explanation for how he has calculated the amount claimed, and he shall also
clarify whether or not he still seeks a recommendation from the Tribunal, in
4112445/2019 (V) Page 3
terms of Section 124 of the Equality Act 2010, as previously indicated in
his ET1 claim form, and, if so, in what terms, allowing the respondents’
solicitor a period, not exceeding 14 days from intimation of such
Schedule of Loss, to make written comment or objection to the Tribunal,
with copy sent at the same time to the claimant, including any Counter-
5
Schedule.
REASONS
Introduction
1. This case called before me again on the morning of Friday, 1 May 2020, for
a public Preliminary Hearing before me as an Employment Judge sitting
10
alone, to consider the respondents’ opposed application for Strike Out, under
Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, on the
basis that the respondents submit that the claim is time-barred, and thus it
has no reasonable prospects of success, as it would not be just and equitable
to grant any extension of time to the claimant, in terms of Section 123 of the
15
Equality Act 2010.
2. On account of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, and joint Presidential
Guidance issued by the Presidents of Employment Tribunals in Scotland, and
England & Wales, in March 2020, and on account of there currently being no
in person Hearings conducted, and both parties notified accordingly, this
20
listed Preliminary Hearing took place remotely given the implications of the
pandemic. It was a video (V) hearing held entirely by Kinly CVP, and parties
did not object to that format.
Background
3. The case had first called before me on Thursday, 19 March 2020, for an in-
25
person Case Management Preliminary Hearing, conducted in private, at the
Glasgow Tribunal office, but with social distancing measures put in place in
the Tribunal hearing room, on account of Covid-19. My written Note and
Orders, dated 23 March 2020, was issued to both parties under cover of a
letter from the Tribunal dated 31 March 2020.
30
To continue reading
Request your trial