Mr F El Maarfi v Verisure Services (UK) Ltd: 2303726/2020
| Judgment Date | 18 February 2022 |
| Citation | 2303726/2020 |
| Date | 18 February 2022 |
| Published date | 18 March 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
Case No: 2303726/2020
10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr F El Maarfi
Respondent: Verisure Services (UK) Limited
Heard at: London South (CVP) On: 15 & 16 February 2022
Before: Employment Judge A.M.S. Green
Representation
Claimant: Ms S Sharp - Counsel
Respondent: Mr C Kennedy - Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
ON PRELIMINARY ISSUES
1. The claimant was not, at the material time, disabled for the purposes of the
Equality Act 2010, section 6.
2. It is just an equitable to extend the time for the claimant to bring his claim for
direct race discrimination pursuant to Equality Act 2010, section 123(1)(b).
REASONS
Introduction
1. On 14 May 2021, Employment Judge Khalil conducted a telephone private
preliminary hearing to case manage the claims. In their case management
summary, Employment Judge Khalil identified the following claims that they
believed the claimant was making against the respondent: disability
discrimination, race discrimination, unauthorised deduction from wages and
breach of the Working Time Regulations. The claimant subsequently withdrew
his claim under the Working Time Regulations as it was agreed that the
Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear that claim. Employment Judge Khalil
then made case management orders including:
Case No: 2303726/2020
10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017
On or before 11 June 2021, the claimant to provide further and better
particulars referred to in paragraphs 6 (race) and 11 (alleged sums which
were properly payable) of the substantive list of issues document.
The list of issues was before the Tribunal.
2. Employment Judge Khalil listed this public preliminary hearing to determine
the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (time) and recorded that it was accepted that the
claim is one day out of time and also to determine whether or not the claimant
was disabled within the meaning of Equality Act 2010, section 6 (“EQA”).
3. On 1 June 2021, the Tribunal administration issued a Notice of Preliminary
Hearing to the parties stating that the purpose of the hearing was:
to determine the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (time) in relation to the
unauthorised deductions claim.
It also noted that case management orders may be made at the end of this
hearing.
4. At the beginning of this hearing, I clarified the issues that I was required to
determine given what ordered by Employment Judge Khalil and was written in
the Notice of Preliminary Hearing. Ms Sharp believed that the hearing was
limited to determining the time bar issue in relation to the unauthorised
deduction of wages claim and the question of the claimant’s disability. Mr
Kennedy had a different understanding. Whilst he agreed that the Tribunal
was determine the question of disability, he questioned whether it could
determine the time bar issue relating to what he believed was only a putative
unauthorised deductions of wages claim. He argued that the claimant had not
made an unauthorised deductions from wages claim and referred me to the
ET1 where the claimant had ticked the box “other payments” in section 8.1.
He said that other than ticking the box, the claimant had not particularised his
claim for unauthorised deductions from wages in the ET1. Simply ticking the
box was insufficient to instigate a claim. Furthermore, had the claimant
intended to make an unauthorised deductions from wages claim, one would
have expected him to have ticked the box “arrears of pay” and then to
particularise the claim. Mr Kennedy then took me to the claimant’s schedule
of loss which expressly refers to an unauthorised deductions from wages
claim amongst the other claims. However, he argued that a schedule of loss
could not be treated as a pleading. Ms Sharp consequently made an
application to amend the claim to include unauthorised deductions from
wages. Having heard submissions from Mr Kennedy and Ms Sharp, I refused
her application and I have set out my reasons for doing so in a separate case
management summary and orders.
5. The matters which I must determine are as follows:
a. Was the claimant disabled at the material time? The claimant alleges
that he has suffered from social anxiety, general anxiety and
depression since October 2018. He further alleges that he has been
taking antidepressants namely Dapoxetine (Priligy). The material time
is the duration of his employment with the respondent which started on
17 June 2019 until he was dismissed with effect from 23 March 2020.
To continue reading
Request your trial