Mrs C Vickers v Dorset Property (Weymouth) Ltd and Mr Barrie George: 1401248/2019
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 January 2021 |
| Citation | 1401248/2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 22 January 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
Case No. 1401248/2019/V
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
BETWEEN
Claimant Respondent
Mrs C Vickers AND Dorset Property (Weymouth)
Limited (1)
Mr Barrie George (2)
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
HELD AT Southampton (by Video – CVP) ON 4 January 2021 to
7 January 2021
EMPLOYMENT JUDGE GRAY MEMBERS MR D CLEMENTS
MR D STEWART
Representation
For the Claimant: Mr Probert (Counsel)
For the Respondents: Mr Henry (Professional Representative)
JUDGMENT – LIABILITY ONLY
The unanimous judgment of the tribunal is that:
The complaint of indirect discrimination on the grounds of disability
is dismissed on withdrawal.
The complaint of constructive unfair dismissal is well founded and
succeeds against the First Respondent.
Case No. 1401248/2019/V
2
The complaint of breach of contract is well founded and succeeds
against the First Respondent.
The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments is well
founded and succeeds against the First and Second Respondents.
The complaint of discrimination arising from disability is well founded
and succeeds against the First and Second Respondents.
The complaint of harassment relating to the letters of 5 February 2019
and 6 March 2019 is well founded and succeeds against the First and
Second Respondents.
The complaint of harassment relating to the letter of 18 March 2019 is
not well founded and fails.
JUDGMENT having been delivered orally on the 7 January 2021 and written
reasons then having been requested at the hearing on the 7 January 2021, in
accordance with Rule 62(3) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
2013, the following reasons are provided:
REASONS
1. This is a claim by the Claimant for unfair constructive dismissal, breach of
contract, and disability discrimination in respect of a failure to make
reasonable adjustments, something arising in consequence, harassment
and indirect discrimination. The Respondents resist the claim.
2. The claim was received on the 11 April 2019 and the dates of the ACAS
early conciliation certificates in respect of both Respondents are 26
February 2019 to 13 March 2019 so that a complaint on or after the 27
November 2018 would be in time.
3. It had been intended for this hearing to be heard in person but it was
converted to video with the parties’ consent.
4. On commencement of the hearing arrangements were made for the
provision of an electronic bundle (330 pages including the index) and
witness statements. Before evidence there was an agreed addition to the
bundle by the Claimant of 3 pages relating to two emails from 2015. We
were also provided with a copy of the Claimant’s chronology.
Case No. 1401248/2019/V
3
5. The witness statements were from the Claimant, her partner Mr Murless
and the Second Respondent and Director of the First Respondent and Mrs
Street (Financial Controller at the relevant time) on behalf of the
Respondents.
6. As a matter of administration, the parties confirmed that the correct legal
title of the First Respondent is Dorset Property (Weymouth) Limited and not
Dorset Property Group Ltd, so this was amended by agreement.
7. The hearing time table was agreed based on that originally set out by
Employment Judge Rayner at the case management hearing before her.
There were some alterations with reading time rescheduled to 2pm on day
one to reflect that the electronic bundles were only provided after the
hearing had started (due to it being converted from in person to video at the
end of the previous week). It was also expected that all the evidence would
be finished by close of day two and submissions would be presented in the
morning of day three. Mr Probert on behalf of the Claimant provided a
written skeleton argument to us and Mr Henry before the hearing
commenced on day three and we are grateful to him for doing this.
8. The issues we had to determine were discussed by reference to those set
out in the case management order of Employment Judge Rayner.
9. It was confirmed that as well as those set out by Employment Judge Rayner
we were also being asked to address an additional complaint of harassment
added by amendment in relation t o the response letter (dated 18 March
2019) sent by the Respondents to the Claimant after receipt of the
Claimant’s resignation letter.
10. The Claimant confirmed that she withdrew her complaints of indirect
discrimination so it was agreed these would be dismissed on withdrawal.
11. It was noted that as the specific complaints of discrimination related to the
letters of the Respondents dated 5 February 2019, 6 March 2019 and 18
March 2019, and the termination of employment was on the 15 March 2019
there were no time limit jurisdictional issues for us to consider.
12. After hearing the evidence from the parties, it was agreed as being
proportionate to consider and deliver judgment on the questions of liability
first, and then deal with remedy as appropriate, as further evidence would
be required on issues relevant to that.
13. The issues we were therefore required to address on the questions of
liability only were agreed and confirmed as being as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial