Mr I Mkwebu v The Aedan Burt Care Trust (ABC Trust) and others: 4114277/2019 and others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 February 2023 |
| Date | 09 February 2023 |
| Published date | 14 August 2020 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 4114277/2019 and others |
| Subject Matter | Public Interest Disclosure |
E.T. Z4 (WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
5
Case No: 4114277/2019 and others
Preliminary Hearing Held remotely on 21 July 2020 (V)
Employment Judge A Kemp
10
Mr I Mkwebu Claimant
In person
15
The Aedan Burt Care Trust (ABC Trust) First Respondent
Represented by
20
Mr D McFadzean
Solicitor
Elizabeth Sophia Jans Second Respondent
Represented by
25
Mr D McFadzean
Solicitor
Stephanie Burnside Third Respondent
Represented by
30
Mr D McFadzean
Solicitor
Victoria Elrick Fourth Respondent
Represented by
35
Mr D McFadzean
Solicitor
John Burt Fifth Respondent
Represented by
40
Mr D McFadzean
Solicitor
Aedan Burt Sixth Respondent
Represented by
45
Mr D McFadzean
Solicitor
4114277/2019 and others Page 2
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
1. The claim against the third respondent Ms Stephanie Burnside
having been withdrawn by the claimant is dismissed.
2. The claimant’s application to amend his Claim is granted in the
following respects:
5
(i) Further particulars of the claim for harassment on grounds of
race in breach of section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 (“the 2010
Act”) in respect of alleged acts in May 2018 arising out of an
incident alleged to have occurred in April 2018, and in respect
of alleged acts in November 2018, subject to reservation of
10
whether such allegations are within the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal on the basis of timebar under section 123 of the 2010
Act.
(ii) A claim of a refusal by the first respondent to permit attendance
of a companion at a grievance hearing in December 2019, in
15
breach of section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, and
victimisation in breach of section 27 of the Equality Act 2010
(“the 2010 Act”).
(iii) Further particulars of a claim of victimisation in breach of
section 27 of the 2010 Act on the basis of an allegation of failure
20
to conduct an adequate investigation into the claimant’s
grievance in a report produced by the first respondent in March
2020.
(iv) Claims in respect of a disciplinary procedure commencing on
6 April 2020 that led to the claimant’s dismissal summarily by
25
the first respondent by letter of 5 May 2020, received by him on
7 May 2020, which is alleged to be in breach of sections 13, 26
and 27 of the 2010 Act, sections 47B and 103A of the
Employment Rights Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”) and section 94 of
the 1996 Act.
30
3. Save as so granted the claimant’s application to amend is refused.
4114277/2019 and others Page 3
REASONS
Introduction
1. This Preliminary Hearing was arranged to consider an application for
amendment by the claimant. It was also held for the purposes of case
management, for which a separate Note has been issued. Two earlier
5
Preliminary Hearings have been held on 30 March 2020 and 19 May 2020,
following each of which a Note was issued.
Context
2. The application to amend is to be considered in the context of the existing
pleadings. That is not a straightforward matter in that there are 10 Claim
10
Forms, against a variety of combinations of respondents, and Further and
Better Particulars which were allowed on 11 June 2020 unopposed. The
Claims were pursued against the first respondent, his employer, in all
cases, and I have identified all respondents by number above for ease of
reference.
15
3. The claimant represents himself, and Mr McFadzean represents all of the
respondents.
Background
4. The claimant was employed by the first respondent. It is a Trust,
constituted I was informed by Deed of Trust, and with the Trustees
20
including the second respondent and fifth respondent. The Trust was set
up to manage the affairs, including provision of care, of the sixth
respondent. The sixth respondent is now an adult, but when a child was
seriously injured in a car accident, is tetraplegic, and requires constant
care.
25
5. The first respondent employed the claimant to carry out various roles in
respect of the care of the sixth respondent. Although he is seriously
disabled by his injuries physically, it is understood that the sixth
respondent’s mental capacity is unaffected, and that he is a highly
intelligent man.
30
To continue reading
Request your trial