Mr A Mouti v Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust: 3305421/2018
| Judgment Date | 17 April 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Race Discrimination |
| Date | 17 April 2022 |
| Citation | 3305421/2018 |
| Published date | 05 May 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
Case No: 3305421/2018
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr Adil Mouti
Respondent: Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Heard at: Reading (via CVP)
On: 8th- 12th and 15th to 16th November 2021
25th, 26th and 28th January 2022
(And in Chambers on 7th, 8th and 10th March 2022)
Before: Employment Judge Eeley
Ms D Ballard
Mr P Adkins
Representation
Claimant: In person
Respondent: Ms B Criddle, counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The claimant’s claim of automatically unfair constructive dismissal for making
a protected disclosure fails and is dismissed (sections 94, 95(1)(c) and 103A
Employment Rights Act 1996).
2. The claimant’s claim that the respondent breached its duty to make reasonable
adjustments within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 fails and is dismissed
(sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010).
3. The claimant’s claim of direct disability discrimination fails and is dismissed
(section 13 Equality Act 2010).
4. The claimant’s claim of direct sex discrimination fails and is dismissed (section
13 Equality Act 2010).
5. The claimant’s claim of direct race discrimination fails and is dismissed (section
13 Equality Act 2010).
6. The claimant’s claim of victimisation contrary to section 27 of the Equality Act
2010 fails and is dismissed.
Case No: 3305421/2018
7. The claimant’s claim for unauthorised deductions from wages fails and is
dismissed (section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996).
REASONS
BACKGROUND
1. By a claim form presented to the Tribunal on 30 March 2018, the claimant
brought various claims against the respondent arising out of his employment
with the respondent as a Research Co-Ordinator between 16 January 2017
and 11 December 2017. The case was actively case managed and, following
a two day long preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Hawksworth agreed
the list of issues with the parties which was to be determined at the final
hearing. That list of issues was to be found at pages 228-238 of the final
hearing bundle. At the outset of the final hearing the Tribunal confirmed with
both parties that the list still accurately reflected the issues in the case. The
Tribunal confirmed that those were the issues which this Tribunal would
determine at the end of the final hearing.
2. The Tribunal received witness evidence from the following witnesses by way
of written statement supplemented by oral evidence at the final hearing:
a. The claimant, Mr Adil Mouti.
b. Mrs Toni Hall, Clinical Unit Operational Manager for Radiology (at the times
relevant to this claim).
c. Mrs Jennifer (“Jenni”) Lee, Clinical Research Operational Manager and
Programme Director for the Biomedical Research Centre (at the times
relevant to this claim).
d. Mrs Baldish (“Bobbie”) Sanghera, Divisional Research and Development
Manager (at the times relevant to this claim).
e. Miss Jaleesa Douglas, HR Consultant (at the times relevant to this claim).
f. Mrs Toni Mackay, Operational Service Manager Diagnostics.
g. Mrs Claire Ridgeon, Radiology Site Manager at the Churchill Hospital and CT
Modality Lead (at the times relevant to this claim).
h. Mrs Samantha Messenger, Personal Assistant (to Professor Fergus
Gleeson, Dr M Anderson, Rachel Benamore and Toni Hall) and Thermal
Ablation Administrator.
3. In addition, the respondent relied on the written witness statement of Mrs
Karen Olliffe (Senior Research Radiographer). Mrs Olliffe was unable to give
oral evidence at the hearing for the reasons set out in a letter dated 2
November 2021 from Judith Richardson, Community Psychiatric Nurse/CBT
Practitioner. We read Mrs Olliffe’s witness statement and gave it such weight
Case No: 3305421/2018
as was appropriate taking into account the fact that it her evidence was not
tested in cross examination.
4. The Tribunal was also referred to the documentary evidence contained within
the agreed final hearing bundle (1691 pages). We read those documents to
which we were referred by the parties. Numbers in square brackets below
are references to pages within the final hearing bundle unless otherwise
indicated.
5. At the conclusion of the hearing we received written submissions from the
respondent which were supplemented by oral submissions. We heard the
claimant’s oral submissions.
PRELIMINARY ISSUES
6. The first three days of the final hearing were taken up with determining three
separate applications made by the claimant. In addition, on the afternoon of
the second day of the hearing, before we had started to hear the witness
evidence, the claimant made an application for witness orders. We started to
consider this application but the claimant withdrew it before we were able to
communicate our decision on the application to the parties. The claimant had
applied for orders requiring the attendance at the final hearing of: Professor
Fergus Gleeson (Professor of Radiology and Divisional Director for Clinical
Support Services), Mr Martyn Leja (HR Consultant), Mr John Drew (Director
of Culture and Improvement) and Mrs Diane Pratley (Research
Administrator). He made no application (withdrawn or otherwise) in respect
of the attendance of Ms Jennifer Wright (Senior HR Consultant) or Ms Kay
Clayton (HR Business Partner).
Strike out application
7. On the first morning of the hearing we heard the claimant’s application that
the respondent’s defence to all his claims should be struck out. We took time
to consider it and gave our decision with oral reasons in the early afternoon
of the first day of the hearing. We refused to strike out the defence to the
claim. The claimant requested written reasons in respect of this decision.
Those written reasons appear in the following paragraphs.
8. The claimant applied to strike out the response to the claims by way of letter
and documents dated and sent to the Tribunal on the 2 November 2021. We
heard submissions orally from the claimant and from Ms Criddle on the first
morning of the final hearing and the Tribunal discussed the appropriate
approach to the application.
9. The claimant’s application was based in on two different elements. Firstly, the
claimant took issue with the list of witnesses attending on behalf of the
respondent for the final merits hearing. He said that there were material
witnesses who were missing from the list and that some of the witnesses who
had, in fact, been called to give evidence were not relevant to the issues in
the case. He summarised his position by saying that the respondent had
effectively ‘cherry picked’ the witnesses that they were putting before the
To continue reading
Request your trial