Mrs G Ewart-Bannister v Aberdeenshire Council: 4109080/2021
| Judgment Date | 05 January 2022 |
| Citation | 4109080/2021 |
| Date | 05 January 2022 |
| Published date | 02 March 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Breach of Contract |
E.T. Z4 (WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
5
Case No: 4109080/2021
Final Hearing Held Remotely by Cloud Video Platform on 29 and
30 November, and 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 December 2021
10
Employment Judge A Kemp
Tribunal Member J McCaig
Tribunal Member N Richardson
15
Mrs Gillian Ewart-Bannister Claimant
Represented by
Mr A Bannister
Husband
20
Aberdeenshire Council Respondent
Represented by
Ms K Stein
Advocate
25
Instructed by
Ms K George
Solicitor
30
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The unanimous Judgment of the Tribunal is that:
1. The claimant was dismissed by the respondent under section
95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”).
35
2. That dismissal was unfair under section 98(4) of the 1996 Act.
3. The respondent dismissed the claimant under section 39 of the
Equality Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”).
4. That dismissal was in breach of sections 15 and 21 of the 2010 Act.
4109080/2021 Page 2
5. The Tribunal makes a declaration under section 124 of the Equality
Act 2010 that the said dismissal was in breach of its terms.
6. The claimant is awarded the sum of FIFTEEN THOUSAND SEVEN
HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE POUNDS (£15,775) payable by the
respondent.
5
REASONS
Introduction
1. This Final Hearing was arranged to address claims of constructive unfair
dismissal and disability discrimination under sections 15 and 20 of the
10
Equality Act 2010. The claimant’s status as a disabled person has been
admitted by the respondent at an earlier stage prior to a Preliminary
Hearing to address the issue, and the respondent further accepted that it
had the actual or imputed knowledge of that from 17 June 2020.
2. There have been three earlier Preliminary Hearings, after which the
15
claimant provided further specification of her claims under section 20.
3. The hearing was arranged to be held by Cloud Video Platform. It was
however delayed in its start as there was a network outage caused by
Storm Arwen in the area in which the claimant resides. She had had no
power since the previous Friday evening, had no internet provision, and
20
that was expected to continue for some days. The hearing was
adjourned on 29 November 2021 to the following day to see what
alternative could be arranged, the claimant’s husband having attended
the hearing by telephone after driving to near Aberdeen to secure a
signal. On 30 November 2021 the claimant and her husband had
25
arranged internet access at business premises near Aberdeen, and the
hearing was able to take place accordingly. The claimant did not move
an application to adjourn the Final Haring fully that solicitors acting on
her behalf had sought in an email on 29 November 2021. The hearing
therefore commenced on 30 November 2021. It was conducted
30
successfully on that remote basis.
4109080/2021 Page 3
Preliminary Matters
4. The claimant sought a number of adjustments for the hearing, on the
basis of a letter tendered from her General Practitioner. There was a
discussion about them. Although one adjustment put forward for
consideration was to have questions and answers in writing the Judge
5
explained that that was not likely to be within the overriding objective
save where there was sufficiently clear medical evidence to support it,
which he did not consider the GP report provided. The claimant’s
husband did not suggest that such an arrangement was required, but
proposed that it would be reasonable to proceed with firstly evidence in
10
periods of thirty minutes with a break after each such period, with the
length of that break discussed at the time, and secondly whenever the
claimant wished to seek a break during her evidence the ability to make
an application for that. The respondent confirmed that it was also content
with such adjustments, and the Tribunal considered that doing so was in
15
accordance with the overriding objective. Breaks were taken regularly on
that basis by agreement of the parties.
5. The respondent had in an earlier email referred to seeking strike out of
the claims but as the hearing was able to proceed Ms Stein confirmed
that she did not move it at that stage.
20
6. Prior to the hearing of evidence the Judge explained to the claimant and
her husband how the Final Hearing would be conducted. He explained
about the reference to the written witness statement as evidence in chief,
and that if a party wished to seek to supplement it that permission to do
so could be sought. He explained that the witness would be cross-
25
examined, and that doing so covered firstly evidence that was
challenged as to its accuracy but also if it did not cover matters
understood to be within the knowledge of that witness but not covered in
the witness statement. He explained that the Tribunal could ask
questions, and that re-examination permitted further questioning on
30
matters raised only in cross examination or by the Tribunal’s questions.
The Judge explained that documents before the Tribunal should be
referred to where relevant, including identifying the part of the document
To continue reading
Request your trial