Mr John Lawrence v Insight Strategic Associates Ltd and Mr Justin Baptie: 3201727/2019
| Judgment Date | 10 November 2020 |
| Citation | 3201727/2019 |
| Published date | 16 November 2020 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
Case Number: 3201727/2019
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr John Lawrence
Respondents: (1) Insight Strategic Associates Limited
(2) Mr Justin Baptie
Heard at: East London Hearing Centre
On: 8 – 11 September and, in chambers, on 12 October 2020
Before: Employment Judge A Ross
Members: Mrs M Legg
Mr P Lush
Representation
Claimant: Ms. Johns, Counsel
Respondent: Mr. Rahman, Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The complaint of medical suspension under section 64 Employment Rights Act
1996 is dismissed on withdrawal.
2. The unanimous judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that the following
complaints are dismissed:
2.1. Direct disability discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010;
2.2. Disability-related harassment under section 26 Equality Act 2010;
2.3. Disability discrimination under section 15 Equality Act 2010;
2.4. Indirect disability discrimination under section 19 Equality Act 2010;
2.5. Victimisation, under section 27 Equality Act 2010.
Case Number: 3201727/2019
2
3. The judgment of the Majority of the Tribunal is that the following complaints
are dismissed:
3.1. Breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments under sections
20-21 Equality Act 2010;
3.2. Unfair dismissal;
3.3. Breach of contract.
4. The Claim is dismissed.
REASONS
Complaints and Issues
1 This hearing proceeded by Cloud Video Platform (“CVP”). No party complained of
how the CVP worked at the hearing. The Tribunal’s understanding was that the hearing
was as fair as it could have been.
2 By a Claim presented on 12 July 2019, after a period of Early Conciliation,
between 13 May and 10 July 2019, the Claimant brought complaints of constructive unfair
dismissal, harassment related to disability, direct discrimination, unfavourable treatment
because of something arising in consequence of disability, breach of the duty to make
reasonable adjustments, victimisation, a claim for medical suspension under section 64
Employment Rights Act (“ERA”), breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages.
3 At a Preliminary Hearing in October 2019, the Claimant was ordered to provide
further particulars of several complaints. The Claimant did not provide a separate
document which pleaded the further information that had been ordered. Instead, this
Tribunal was informed that the further information was contained in the List of Issues that
had been agreed between the parties. The Claimant’s failure to set out the further
information relied upon was a breach of the case management order. Also, this approach
reflects a failure by the Claimant’s advisers to recognise the purpose of the Claim is to set
out the legal case of the Claimant; this should not be attempted through a List of Issues,
which is an agreed document, drawn up by considering the parties’ pleadings, and which
is intended to be a tool for the parties and the Tribunal (As to the status and use of a list of
issues, see Parekh v LB Brent [2012] EWCA Civ 1630 applied in Scicluna v Zippy Stitch
Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1320).
4 The parties had produced an agreed List of Issues for this hearing, which ran to
10 pages, and contained around 60 or so issues.
5 As a result of the number of liability issues, the Tribunal informed the parties that it
would hear and determine the liability issues, to include the issue of contributory fault, in
the first instance.
6 At the outset of the hearing, the parties were invited to consider if any of those
Case Number: 3201727/2019
3
issues could be narrowed, not least because the case was listed for only 4 days.
Ms. Johns explained that the Claimant would prefer to do this at the point of submissions.
The Respondents admitted that the Claimant was a disabled person at all material times
due to his mental impairment of depression with anxiety. The issue of whether the
Respondents had the requisite knowledge remained in dispute.
7 The Tribunal were concerned that despite the large number of issues remaining
for determination by the close of the evidence, the parties did not appear to have focussed
on which complaints were pursued and which issues were in fact in dispute. The Tribunal
directed the parties at the close of the evidence to mark the List of Issues with the
paragraph number of the witness statement, or page reference, that evidenced particular
allegations in each case. Ms. Johns, for the Claimant, did this. Mr. Rahman, for the
Respondents, did not.
8 In any event, the “Draft List of Issues Annotated on 9 September 2020” prepared
by Ms. Johns was of real assistance because it marked those allegations which were
withdrawn. The complaint under section 64 ERA was withdrawn; the Tribunal dismissed
it.
9 In this set of Reasons, when referring to the List of Issues, the Tribunal is referring
to the List as annotated by the Claimant on 9 September 2020.
Evidence
10 The Tribunal read witness statements and heard oral evidence from the following
witnesses:
10.1 The Claimant;
10.2 Justin Baptie, Managing Director;
10.3 Angela Dansey, Human Resources Consultant;
10.4 Diana Collins, Human Resources Consultant.
11 The Respondent sought permission to rely on two further witness statements from
Kym Wallace and Kara Kelsey. These had been served very late, on 2 September 2020.
The Claimant objected to the admission of this evidence. The Tribunal refused the
application to adduce the evidence from these two witnesses for reasons given at the time
on 8 September 2020.
12 The bundle contained an impact statement from the Claimant. The issue of
disability was admitted at the outset. The impact statement was not introduced into
evidence; it was not verified as true by the Claimant.
13 There was an agreed bundle of documents (page 1-289); page references in this
set of Reasons refer to pages in that bundle.
14 When Mr. Baptie gave evidence, in examination-in-chief, he confirmed that the
contents of the ET3 Response and the Respondent’s further particulars at p.83 were true.
To continue reading
Request your trial