Mr G Ruddock v The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency: 3314132/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 December 2022 |
| Date | 22 December 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 10 January 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Breach of Contract |
Case Number: 3314132/2020
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
Mr Gareth Ruddock v
The Driver and Vehicle Standards
Agency
Heard at: Norwich
On: 26 – 30 September 2022
In Chambers: 3 October 2022
Before: Employment Judge M Warren
Members: Mr C Grant and Mr B McSweeney
Appearances
For the Claimants: In person
For the Respondent: Mr P Livingston, Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The Claimant’s claims for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, breach of
contract and for unpaid wages fail and are dismissed.
REASONS
Background
1. By a claim form presented on 25 November 2020, Mr Ruddock has
brought claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, for unlawful
deduction from wages and for what he has described as holiday pay but
which is a claim in fact for breach of contract, not a claim under the
Working Time Regulations 1998.
2. The matter came before Employment Judge Ord at a Telephone Closed
Preliminary Hearing on 11 October 2021. Whilst the issues were
discussed at that Preliminary Hearing, a final List of Issues was agreed
between the parties in April 2022.
Case Number: 3314132/2020
2
3. An Application by the Respondent to amend its Response was first made
in its Agenda for the Preliminary Hearing, reiterated in an email of
19 October 2021 and again on 16 November 2021, but was not dealt with
at the time. Leave to Amend was granted by Employment Judge Laidler
on 8 February 2022, Amended Grounds of Resistance filed and served on
9 March 2022.
4. In the Amended Grounds of Resistance, the Respondent accepted that Mr
Ruddock was a disabled person by reason of depression at all material
times and that it had knowledge of such disability, (paragraph 20). It did
not accept that his anxiety and depression had any impact on his memory,
(paragraph 29).
Evidence
5. This hearing was conducted by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) and there
were refreshingly few technical issues.
6. Mr Ruddock did not call any witnesses other than himself. He provided a
full and comprehensive witness statement.
7. The Respondent called the following witnesses, who also provided witness
statements:
7.1. Mr Andrew Griffiths, Mr Ruddock’s Manager at the time;
7.2. Mr Craig Lambourn, Investigating Officer;
7.3. Miss Kelly Francis, Decision Maker, (dismissal);
7.4. Mr Christopher Dormand, Decision Maker, (appeal); and
7.5. Mr Gary Glaister, a colleague.
8. We were provided with a properly paginated and indexed Bundle of
documents in PDF format running to page number 820.
9. At the outset of the case, we read the witness statements and either read
or looked at in our discretion, the documents referred to in the witness
statements. We explained to the parties we have not and will not read the
Bundle in its entirety and that they must make sure they take us to relevant
passages in the documents during the cross examination of witnesses.
10. Additionally, we were provided with:
10.1. An agreed chronology;
10.2. A cast list;
10.3. Written closing submissions from Mr Ruddock; and
10.4. Written closing submissions from Mr Livingstone.
11. We also heard oral submissions from the parties at the conclusion of the
evidence.
12. We heard oral evidence from each of the witnesses.
Case Number: 3314132/2020
3
13. In accordance with Health and Safety Guidance, we took a break of ten
minutes every 50 minutes. We also took breaks whenever they were
requested by Mr Ruddock, as they occasionally were.
The Issues
14. We were provided with an Agreed List of Issues which the parties
confirmed to us at the outset, we could rely upon as identifying the
relevant issues to be decided in this case. As it happened, during
evidence when I explained to Mr Ruddock that a finding of direct
discrimination would require a finding that, consciously or unconsciously,
the motive of the alleged discriminator would have be that Mr Ruddock
was disabled, he withdrew his allegations of direct discrimination.
15. Similarly, when I explained to Mr Ruddock that harassment per se is not
protected by employment law and that harassment contrary to the Equality
Act 2010, requires the matters complained of to be related to disability, he
withdrew a significant number of his allegations of harassment.
16. There is no criticism of Mr Ruddock in the withdrawals that he made. He
is a litigant in person and it is understandable that he is not familiar with
these concepts of employment discrimination law. He is to be
commended for the sensible decisions he made to withdraw aspects of his
claim.
17. The List of Issues as agreed between the parties is replicated by way of
cutting and pasting below. In respect of those allegations withdrawn, I
have identified by typing in bold the word, “Withdrawn” at the beginning
of the relevant paragraph.
Unfair dismissal (section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”)
1. What was the reason or principal reason for dismissal? Was it a potentially fair reason within
the meaning of section 98(2) ERA?
2. The Respondent asserts that the reason was misconduct, which is a potentially fair reason. The
following sub-issues fall to be determined:
2.1. Did the Respondent genuinely believe that the Claimant had committed the alleged
misconduct, namely that:
2.1.1. On 15 December 2019 the Claimant drove recklessly on DVSA property with a
member of the public in his vehicle; and
To continue reading
Request your trial