Mr K Ferguson v Kintail Trustees Ltd and Agnes Lawrie Addie Shonaig MacPherson: 4103321/2020
| Judgment Date | 28 June 2021 |
| Date | 28 June 2021 |
| Published date | 24 February 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
E.T. Z4 (WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
5
Case No:4103321/2020 (V)
Final Hearing Held by Cloud Video Platform on 14 – 17 December 2020 and
10 and 11 May 2021, with deliberation days on 13 May, 16 June and 25 June
10
2021
Employment Judge A Kemp
Tribunal Member S Singh
15
Tribunal Member G Doherty
Mr K Ferguson Claimant
20
Represented by
Mr T Cordery
Barrister
Instructed by
Mr T Ellis
25
Solicitor
Kintail Trustees Ltd First Respondent
Represented by:
30
Ms C Aldridge
Solicitor
35
Agnes Lawrie Addie Shonaig MacPherson Second Respondent
Represented by:
Ms C Aldridge
Solicitor
40
45
4103321/2020 Page 2
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
1. The decision of the Tribunal, unanimous save as to the claim of direct
discrimination, is that
(i) The claimant was unfairly dismissed by the first respondent
5
(ii) The claim of direct discrimination of the claimant by the first
respondent under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 succeeds
by a majority decision
(iii) The second respondent is liable for the acts of direct
discrimination under sections 109 and 110 of the Equality Act
10
2010
(iv) The claimant did not receive a written statement of particulars
under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
(v) The claim of harassment under section 26 of the Equality Act is
dismissed.
15
2. There shall be a hearing on remedy to take place remotely for a period
of two days on dates to be afterwards fixed. .
20
REASONS
Introduction
1. This was a Final Hearing on the claims made by the claimant. He was
25
represented by Mr Cordery. The respondents were both represented by Ms
Aldridge.
2. The hearing took place by Cloud Video Platform remotely in accordance with
the orders made at the Preliminary Hearing on 9 September 2020. It had been
30
notified externally and a number of observers were present.
4103321/2020 Page 3
3. The hearing was conducted successfully, with the parties, representatives
and witnesses attending (in the case of the witnesses they did so individually
when called to give their evidence) and being able to be seen and heard, as
well as being able themselves to see and hear. On a number of occasions
the connection of one of the participants was lost, but renewed shortly
5
thereafter such that it did not unduly interrupt the proceedings, and the
evidence was repeated where necessary. On the fourth day it was noted that
the witness Ms Campbell had logged into the hearing remotely and
inadvertently been admitted. She heard the evidence only very briefly and her
having gained admission to the hearing for a brief period was not considered
10
to affect her evidence in any material way.
4. The Tribunal members each had a paper copy of the Bundle of Documents..
Both parties provided supplementary documents which were available
electronically.
15
5. The parties had agreed an outline timetable for the evidence for the first four
days of hearing, but that had not included time for breaks, questions from the
Tribunal, or re-examination where required. The Tribunal informed the
representatives that it was not necessary to stay rigidly within the timetable
20
that they had set out. It was also agreed that the hearing was unlikely to be
concluded if it covered remedy and was restricted to the issue of liability only,
with remedy to be heard separately in the event that the claimant succeeded.
Towards the end of the fourth day the evidence of the final witness for the
claimant Ms Campbell had not been heard, and it was agreed that that should
25
take place on a later date. In due course, that date was arranged for 10 May
2021, an unfortunately lengthy period from the December 2020 dates. It was
anticipated that that day would include her evidence and submissions by both
parties. The evidence of Ms Campbell finished a little after 3pm on 10 May
2021, its start having been delayed by submissions as to whether additional
30
productions should be received or not as referred to below, and it was agreed
that the following day be utilised for submissions, the parties having produced
outline submissions in writing in advance. 11 May 2021 had been arranged
for a deliberation day, but having partly been taken up with submissions
To continue reading
Request your trial