Mr S Langenhoven v Shropshire Council and others: 1300229/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 June 2021 |
| Citation | 1300229/2020 |
| Date | 07 June 2021 |
| Published date | 10 June 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Public Interest Disclosure |
Case No: 1300229/2020 V
10.2 Judgment - rule 61 February 2018
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr S Langenhoven
First Respondent: Shropshire Council
Second Respondent: Mr S Brown
Third Respondent: Mr A Morgan
Fourth Respondent: Mr A McKie
Fifth Respondent: Mr M Seddon
Sixth Respondent: Mr M Barrow
Heard at: Birmingham Employment Tribunal (by CVP)
On: 10 May 2021 – 21 May 2021
Before: Employment Judge Mark Butler
Mr D Faulconbridge
Mrs L Evans
Representation
Claimant: In person
Respondent: Mr M Davies (Solicitor)
This has been a remote hearing which has not been objected to by the parties.
The form of remote hearing was V. A face to face hearing was not held because
of the ongoing pandemic and all issues could be determined in a remote hearing.
JUDGMENT
The claimant’s claims of detriments on the grounds of having made a protected
disclosure are ill-founded and dismissed as against the First, Second, Third,
Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Respondent.
REASONS
Case No: 1300229/2020 V
10.2 Judgment - rule 61 February 2018
Introduction
1. The claims in this case arise following the presentation of a claim form on
17 January 2020. The claimant brought a number of different complaints
against a number of named respondents.
2. This claim was considered by Employment Judge Hindmarch at a
Preliminary Hearing, that took place on 19 June 2020. The claim was
recorded as being a claim by the claimant for having been subjected to
detriments on the grounds that he had made protected disclosures.
3. There appeared to be some failings in respect of an agreed bundle of
evidence. We place no blame on either party in this respect as we have
not been privy to what caused these failings. The tribunal was not
concerned with who was at fault at this moment in time. Both parties and
the tribunal had access to the bundle produced by the respondent and that
produced by the claimant. And there were no objections to their use by
anybody involved. In essence the tribunal had access to two bundles of
documents (with significant overlap between the two). The first bundle was
one produced by the respondent, and contained circa 850 pages. The
second bundle was sent by the claimant and contained some 923 pages.
4. The claimant gave evidence on his own behalf and called no further
witnesses.
5. We heard evidence from respondents 2-6.
6. The hearing was impacted upon by some technical difficulties during it.
Most notably was the difficulty in Mr Brown connecting to the CVP room,
such that he could both hear and be heard when present on the hearing.
There were other occasions where technical difficulties delayed matters. In
all, the tribunal lost circa three quarters of a day due to technical
difficulties.
7. We were mindful of a number of matters throughout this hearing. And took
account of the Equal Treatment Bench Book in ensuring that all
participants could engage in the process. Most notably was that this was a
lengthy hearing being conducted remotely, the claimant is a litigant in
person, and that Mr Davies made the tribunal aware of a physical
impairment. Adjustments were made during the hearing accordingly.
The issues
8. The list of issues was recorded by EJ Hindmarch at the Preliminary
Hearing of 19 June 2020. The issues were recorded as follows:
a. Were the claims brought in time? And if not, should time be
extended to give the tribunal jurisdiction over the claim?
To continue reading
Request your trial