Mr P Broome v S A Gosling T/a Riding Farm Equestrian Centre: 2303257/2019 and 2301645/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 May 2021 |
| Citation | 2303257/2019 and 2301645/2020 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 08 June 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
Case Numbers: 2303257/2019/V& 2301645/2020/V
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr P Broome
Respondent: Sally-Ann Gosling t/a Riding Farm Equestrian Centre
Heard on: 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th April 2021
and in chambers on 4th May 2021
Before: Employment Judge Pritchard
Mr N Aziz
Mr R Singh
Representation
Claimant: Ms G Broome, the Claimant’s mother
Respondent: Mr A Richardson, counsel
JUDGMENT
It is the unanimous decision of the Tribunal that:
1 By consent the Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of
£1,355.20 in settlement of his claim for holiday pay.
2 The Respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments to the extent
described below.
3 The Claimant’s claim that he was discriminated against because of
something arising in consequence of his disability is dismissed.
4 The Claimant’s claim of harassment is dismissed.
REASONS
1. By way of an ET1 presented on 15 August 2019 the Claimant claimed disability
discrimination. In her ET3, the Respondent resisted the claim.
2. By way of a further ET1, the Claimant claimed outstanding holiday pay. That
claim was settled in the terms of this judgment and did not concern the Tribunal
further.
Case Numbers: 2303257/2019/V& 2301645/2020/V
3. Employment Judge Nash considered the claims and issues in the case and
issued case management orders at a preliminary hearing held on 4 February
2020.
4. Notwithstanding the clear case management orders issued by Employment
Judge Nash, preparation for the hearing was in some disarray. In particular: the
Claimant had failed to provide the Respondent with a witness statement dealing
with the effect of his alleged disability on his ability to carry out normal day to
day activities as required under paragraph 5.2 of the case management order;
and the Respondent had failed to comply with the requirements of paragraph 7
of the case management order by providing the Claimant with a hard copy of
documents by 15 June 2020 for use at the hearing (instead the Tribunal was
provided with no less than twelve batches of documents which did not appear
to be in chronological order and which contained duplications). With regard to
the first matter, the Claimant told the Tribunal that he wished to rely upon a
report issued by Kent County Council dated 12 April 2020 and an undated
document from Symbol. With regard to the second matter, the Tribunal
determined that the first day of the hearing would be used by the Tribunal
members to read the documents before them while the Respondent prepared
a paginated chronological composite bundle of the documents. Further, the
parties co-operated with each other and provided the Tribunal with an amended
list of PCPs in respect of the reasonable adjustments and indirect
discrimination claims. Although a composite bundle was prepared and provided
to the Tribunal, it was disappointing that the documents were still not all in a
chronological order. Nevertheless, the Tribunal was satisfied that a fair hearing
could proceed and the parties agreed.
5. The Tribunal heard evidence from the Claimant and from his mother; the
Tribunal also heard evidence from the respondent. At the conclusion of the
hearing the parties made brief oral submissions.
Issues
6. The issues in the case had been set out by Employment Judge Nash in her
case management order. Having read the papers, the Tribunal was concerned
that the allegations of direct discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act
should properly be categorised as allegations of discrimination arising from
disability under section 15 of the Equality Act. Upon discussion at the start of
the second day of the hearing, the parties agreed that section 15 was the
appropriate categorization.
7. Further, the Tribunal was concerned about the description of the PCPs set out
in the case management order in respect of the claims for indirect
discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The Tribunal gave
the parties the opportunity to discuss how the PCPs might properly be
described and the parties provided the Tribunal with a revised list.
8. The Claimant had presented a further ET1 claiming holiday pay. This claim was
settled between the parties on the first day of the hearing, agreement being
reached as to the payment set out in the judgment above.
9. The issues in the case can now be described as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial