Mr J Taylor v Grwp Llandrillo Menai: 1601581/2019
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 June 2021 |
| Citation | 1601581/2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 14 October 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
Case Number: 1601581/2019
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant:
Mr J Taylor
Respondent:
Grwp Llandrillo Menai
Heard at:
Cardiff (by CVP)
On: 8, 9, 10 and 11 March 2021
Before:
Employment Judge R Vernon
Ms L Bishop
Ms P Humphreys
Representation:
Claimant:
Miss R Barrett (Counsel)
Respondent:
Mr J Duffy (Counsel)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
Introduction
1. By an ET1 Claim Form presented to the Tribunal on 4 September 2019, the
Claimant presented complaints of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and
disability discrimination. The ET1 Claim Form was accompanied by detailed
grounds of complaint setting out the facts alleged by the Claimant and the
basis on which he pursues his four complaints.
2. On 3 October 2019 the Respondent presented its ET3 Response. The
Respondent denies liability for all of the Claimant’s complaints for reasons set
out in the detailed grounds of resistance which accompanied the ET3.
3. A preliminary hearing took place before Employment Judge Michell on 11
December 2019. By that time, the Claimant had voluntarily provided further
and better particulars of the complaint of disability discrimination. The
Claimant asserted that the Respondent had committed unlawful disability
discrimination against him on two bases: a) discrimination arising from
disability contrary to section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 and b) failing to make
reasonable adjustments contrary to sections 20 and 21 of the 2010 Act.
Case Number: 1601581/2019
2
4. At that preliminary hearing, EJ Michell ordered the Claimant to file a re-drafted
version of the further and better particulars to provide some further additional
detail. The Claimant subsequently did so on 18 December 2019.
5. It was agreed with the parties at that preliminary hearing that the claim would
be listed for final hearing with a four day time estimate. That hearing was
originally due to take place in the early part of 2020. However, as a result of
delays caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and after further efforts were made
to consider and make arrangements for the final hearing in light of the
difficulties caused, the final hearing took place over four days from 8 to 11
March 2021.
The hearing and evidence
6. The hearing took place remotely with all parties, witnesses, representatives
and the Tribunal attending by Cloud Video Platform. The hearing was not
without its difficulties with a number of participants experiencing connection
problems during the hearing. However, notwithstanding those issues, the
hearing proceeded and all of the evidence was heard and submissions were
concluded on the morning of day 4 of the hearing. Regrettably, that did not
leave sufficient time for the Tribunal to deliberate and deliver an oral judgment.
Judgment was therefore reserved.
7. The Tribunal was satisfied that, despite the technological issues referred to
above, the final hearing was conducted appropriately and fairly to both parties
with both having a full opportunity to present their evidence and submissions.
8. The Tribunal received the following evidence:
8.1 A bundle (including an addendum bundle) of documents comprising pages
1 to 531;
8.2 A written witness statement from the Claimant;
8.3 Written witness statements on behalf of the Respondent from Maggie
Griffiths (Assistant Principal at Coleg Llandrillo and the Claimant’s senior
line manager), Lawrence Wood (Principal of Coleg Llandrillo), Jamie Clegg
(the Respondent’s Human Resources Director since January 2019) and
Dafydd Evans (the Respondent’s Chief Executive Officer).
9. In addition to the written witness evidence, the Tribunal also heard oral
evidence from all witnesses including the Claimant.
10. In light of the issues to be determined, and with the agreement of the parties,
the Respondent’s witnesses gave evidence first. After completing his initial
evidence, Mr Clegg was recalled to give evidence on one particular issue after
Case Number: 1601581/2019
3
all of the Respondent’s other witnesses had given evidence b ut before the
Claimant gave evidence. Both parties and the Tribunal had a full opportunity
to ask Mr Clegg questions on that issue before the Respondent’s case was
formally closed.
11. The Tribunal also received written and oral submissions from the
representatives of both parties.
Issues
12. A comprehensive list of issues had been prepared by the parties in preparation
for the final hearing. The list of issues was agreed as between counsel for the
parties. The Tribunal considered the list of issues, agreed with it and therefore
adopted it for use at the final hearing.
13. As a consequence of the time estimate, and in light of the number of issues to
be determined, the Tribunal indicated that it would focus initially upon issues
of liability (but including any issues of contributory fault and Polkey in relation
to the unfair dismissal complaint) and would consider any issues of remedy if
they arose in light of the findings and conclusions on liability.
14. It is to be noted at this stage that, for the purposes of the complaints of disability
discrimination, the Respondent accepts that the Claimant was a disabled
person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at all material times by
reason of his Type 1 diabetes. It is also to be noted that other medical
conditions of the Claimants’ are referred to in the documents and witness
statements (including cancer and anxiety and depression) but those other
conditions are not relied upon by the Claimant for the purposes of his claim
and are therefore not relevant to the issues to be determined.
Findings of fact
Preliminary observations
15. Having considered all of the evidence the Tribunal now sets out its findings of
fact relevant to the issues to be determined. In doing so, the Tribunal will set
out those facts which it considers material to the complaints it has to determine.
In doing so, the Tribunal will not rehearse every piece of evidence received
and will not seek to resolve every factual dispute that was apparent from the
evidence. If any particular piece of evidence is not referred to, that does not
indicate it has not been considered.
16. Where any material fact was in dispute between the parties we will make such
findings as we consider are appropriate based on the evidence available. We
will resolve any dispute of fact on the basis of the balance of probabilities i.e.
what the Tribunal finds is more likely than not to be the case.
To continue reading
Request your trial