Mr T Skinner v Smith & Williamson Corporate Services Ltd: 2202090/2019
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 June 2020,15 December 2020 |
| Citation | 2202090/2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 16 June 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case Number: 2202090/2019
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
Mr T Skinner
V
Smith & Williamson
Corporate Services Limited
Heard at: London Central On: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10 February 2020
Before: Employment Judge Joffe
Ms T Breslin
Mr J Carroll
Representation
For the Claimant: In person
For the Respondent: Mr S Purnell, counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The claim for unfair dismissal under sections 94 and 98(4) Employment
Rights Act 1996 is dismissed.
2. The claims of discrimination under s 15 Equality Act 2010 are dismissed
3. The claims of discrimination under s 13 Equality Act 2010 are dismissed.
4. The claims of discrimination under ss 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 are
dismissed.
5. The claims of discrimination under s 26 Equality Act 2010 are dismissed.
Case Number: 2202090/2019
2
REASONS
Claims and issues
1. The claimant brings claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The
issues were agreed at a case management hearing in front of EJ Nicolle on 15
October 2019 and are as set out below. We have recast them in some respects
to better reflect the tests we have to apply but they are in substance the same as
the parties’ agreed list.
2. The name of the respondent was amended by agreement from Smith & Williamson
to Smith & Williamson Corporate Services Limited at the outset of the hearing.
Time limits / limitation issues
(i) Were all of the claimant’s discrimination complaints presented within the
time limits set out in sections 123(1)(a) & (b) of the Equality Act 2010
(“EQA”)? Dealing with this issue may involve consideration of subsidiary
issues including: whether there was an act and/or conduct extending over
a period; whether time should be extended on a “just and equitable” basis;
when the treatment complained about occurred; etc.
Unfair dismissal
(ii) What was the principal reason for dismissal and was it a potentially fair
one in accordance with sections 98(1) and (2) of the Employment Rights
Act 1996 (“ERA”)? The respondent asserts that it was a reason relating to
the claimant’s conduct.
(iii) If so, was the dismissal fair or unfair in accordance with ERA section 98(4),
and, in particular, did the respondent in all respects act within the so-called
‘band of reasonable responses’? The tribunal will consider:
a) Whether the respondent had a genuine belief the claimant was guilty of
the misconduct alleged;
b) Whether the respondent had conducted such investigation as was
reasonable;
c) Whether the respondent had reasonable grounds for its belief;
d) Whether the procedure followed was fair;
e) Whether dismissal was a fair sanction.
Remedy for unfair dismissal
(iv) If the claimant was unfairly dismissed and the remedy is compensation:
Case Number: 2202090/2019
3
a. if the dismissal was procedurally unfair, what adjustment, if any, should be
made to any compensatory award to reflect the possibility that the claimant
would still have been dismissed had a fair and reasonable procedure been
followed / have been dismissed in time anyway? See: Polkey v AE Dayton
Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8; paragraph 54 of Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews
[2007] ICR 825; W Devis & Sons Ltd v Atkins [1977] 3 All ER 40; Crédit
Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Wardle [2011] IRLR 604;
b. would it be just and equitable to reduce the amount of the claimant’s basic
award because of any blameworthy or culpable conduct before the dismissal,
pursuant to ERA section 122(2); and if so to what extent?
c. did the claimant, by blameworthy or culpable actions, cause or contribute to
dismissal to any extent; and if so, by what proportion, if at all, would it be just
and equitable to reduce the amount of any compensatory award, pursuant to
ERA section 123(6)?
Disability Discrimination
Disability
(v) Was the claimant a disabled person in accordance with the Equality Act 2010
(“EQA”) at all relevant times (i.e. from the first investigation meeting on 30
October 2018 to his dismissal on 9 April 2019) because of the following
condition: general [presumably an error for ‘generalised’] anxiety disorder?
EQA, section 15: discrimination arising from disability
(vi) Did the following thing arise in consequence of the claimant’s disability: a
panic attack at an investigation meeting on 30 October 2018?
(vii) Did the respondent treat the claimant unfavourably as follows: relying on
evidence obtained at the investigation meeting?
(viii) Did the respondent treat the claimant unfavourably in that way because of
the claimant’s panic attack?
(ix) If so, has the respondent shown that the unfavourable treatment was a
proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim?
(x) Alternatively, has the respondent shown that it did not know, and could not
reasonably have been expected to know, that the claimant had the
disability?
Reasonable adjustments: EQA, sections 20 & 21
To continue reading
Request your trial