Mr Y H El-Nahla v Top Discount Electrical Stores Ltd: 3335363/2018
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 October 2022 |
| Date | 14 October 2022 |
| Published date | 25 October 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 3335363/2018 |
| Subject Matter | Race Discrimination |
Case Number: 3335363/2018
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
COVID-19 Statement on behalf of Sir Keith Lindblom, Senior President of Tribunals
“On the application of the claimant, the hearing was converted to a hybrid hearing for
reasons set out in the reasons for the postponement of the hearing sent to the parties with
these written judgment and reasons. A face to face hearing was not held because it was not
practicable and the purposes of the hearing could be achieved at a remote hearing.”
Claimant Respondent
Mr Y Hassan El
-
Nahla
v
Top Discount Electrical Stores Limited
Heard at: Watford Employment Tribunal On: 16 & 17 August 2022
Before: Employment Judge George
Members: Mr D Sagar
Ms A Brosnan
Appearances
For the Claimant: in person (by CVP)
For the Respondent: Ms S Kamal, counsel
JUDGMENT
1. By a majority, Mr Sagar the employer’s side non-legal member dissenting, the
respondent subjected the claimant to religious related harassment by
1.1. on 18 June 2018, by Phil Kurland of the respondent saying “Mecca, do you
mean that place where people go round and round and never get anywhere”;
and
1.2. on 19 July 2018, by Phil Kurland, on seeing the claimant kneeling down,
saying “Are you kneeling towards Mecca?”
2. By a unanimous decision, the respondent subjected the claimant to a detriment on
grounds of protected disclosure by
2.1. telling him, on about 27 September 2018, that he would have to take annual
leave in order for them to investigate the allegation he had raised against a
colleague;
2.2. failing to take any action to ensure that the claimant was safe at work after he
reported the colleague’s behaviour on 27 September 2018; and
Case Number: 3335363/2018
2
2.3. failing to communicate the outcome of any investigation into the claimant’s
complaint.
3. The employment tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the harassment claims even
though they were presented more than three months after the act complained of
because it is just and equitable to extend time in order to do so.
4. All other claims are dismissed.
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDERS
Under Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
1. All remaining issues as to remedy will be considered at a remedy hearing to take
place on 4 November 2022 at the Employment Tribunal, 3rd Floor, Radius House,
51 Clarendon Road, Watford, Hertfordshire, WD17 1HP.
2. No later 21 October 2022, the claimant is to send to the respondent and the Tribunal
a. a statement explaining how the acts which the Tribunal has found to be
unlawful have affected him. He is to include any medical evidence upon
which he intends to rely.
b. an updated statement of the losses he is claiming to the respondent and the
Tribunal.
REASONS
1. The procedural history of this case and our decision and reasons for acceding to the
claimant’s application for a postponement are set out in the written record of that
decision. We postponed the hearing, for reasons given at the time, from the original
listed start date of 15 August to 16 August and converted it to a hybrid format. That
separate written record is send to the parties at the same time as these written
reasons for our judgment on the substantive issues.
2. As we record in that written record of our decision on 15 August, the claimant was
apparently not in a position to exchange witness statements as directed by
Employment Judge McNeill KC and, after an unless order was made, he indicated that
he did not have further information to provide than had been set out in the four page
document attached to his claim form. That, therefore, stood as his witness statement,
he adopted it in evidence and was cross-examined on it. The respondent sent the
claimant witness statements setting out the evidence to be given by Philip Kurland, the
Managing Director of the respondent, and Chris Kurland, his son, who is the Manager.
They did not attend to give evidence but the respondent relied upon their statement
evidence.
3. We also had the benefit of a joint bundle of documents which ran to 142 pages and
page numbers in these reasons refer to that bundle.
To continue reading
Request your trial