Mr M Carr v Bloomberg L.P.: 2203206/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 December 2021 |
| Date | 13 December 2021 |
| Citation | 2203206/2020 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 25 August 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case Number: 2203206/2020
- 1 -
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
Mr M Carr
v
Bloomberg L.P.
Heard at: London Central
On: 7 July 2020 and chambers 8 July 2020
Before: Employment Judge Hodgson
Representation
For the Claimant: Mr J Cook, counsel
For the Respondent: Mr J Laddie, QC
DECISION
The claimant’s application for interim relief pursuant to section 128
Employment Rights Act 1996 fails and is dismissed.
REASONS
Introduction
1. The claimant issued his claim on 28 May 2020. The claimant brings
multiple claims which include the following: unfair dismissal; direct age
discrimination; and direct race discrimination. He alleges that he was
dismissed because he made protected disclosure and brings a claim
pursuant to section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996.
Case Number: 2203206/2020
- 2 -
The hearing
2. This case proceeded as a remote hearing. There was an initial case
management hearing on 25 June 2020. All parties agreed that the claim
for interim relief was suitable for a video hearing. To allow the parties to
familiarise themselves with the CVP video platform, and to iron out
technical difficulties, there was a short further case management hearing
the day before the hearing.
3. Witness evidence was filed, but no party sought an order for cross
examination. Both parties were ably represented by experienced counsel,
both of whom provided detailed skeleton arguments.
4. The case was advertised on CourtServe. Several members of the public,
and at least one member of the press, attended the hearing. Three
members of the public were not within the jurisdiction: one was in
Australia, one Singapore, and one Hong Kong. They were friends or
relatives of the claimant. Each of those individuals agreed not to record
either the audio or the video, or to capture any images. I noted that they
may not be directly subject to the jurisdiction of England and Wales. I was
concerned that allowing them to observe the hearing goes beyond any
requirement for a public hearing in this country. Neither counsel nor I
were aware of any specific directions or guidance given by either the
tribunal or the higher courts. Neither party objected to the individuals
outside the jurisdiction continuing to watch the proceedings. As each of
the individuals confirmed they would observe the prohibition on recording,
and given that their interest was personal, I took the view that they should
be permitted to observe, albeit I did not consider I had an obligation to do
so. I should note that in the absence of clear guidance, I do not consider I
have an obligation to prevent the hearing being viewed outside the
jurisdiction.
5. During the first case management discussion, we specifically considered
the challenges that such video hearings may present in terms of public
access. As outlined above, provision was made for the public to join by
means of a video link. We considered how documents should be made
available to the public. CVP allows presentation of individual documents
on screen. Following my request, one of the respondent's trainee
solicitors, Ms Ainsley, agreed to assist by taking responsibility for
displaying relevant documents on screen, as they were referred to. The
net result was all could see the specific document referred to, albeit only
the individual page referred to, was displayed.
6. I considered the possibility of a member of the public seeking greater
access than could feasibly be allowed by screen presentation. The
respondent agreed to keep a hardcopy of the relevant documents, and it
was envisaged that if a greater access were requested, or required, it may
be possible to allow inspection of those documents, without removal or
To continue reading
Request your trial