Mrs M Tait v Biggar Medical Practice: 4103207/2020
| Judgment Date | 12 May 2021 |
| Citation | 4103207/2020 |
| Published date | 13 September 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
E.T. Z4 (WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: 4103207/2020 (V)
5
Final Hearing Held remotely on 30 and 31 March 2021
Employment Judge A Kemp
10
Mrs M Tait Claimant
Represented by:
Mr R Brown
Solicitor
15
Biggar Medical Practice Respondent
Represented by:
Ms L Doyle
Solicitor
20
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The claimant was not dismissed by the respondent and her Claim is dismissed.
25
REASONS
Introduction
1. The claimant made what is normally referred to as a claim for constructive
dismissal against the respondent. The Claim was denied.
Issues
30
2. The Tribunal identified the following issues:
(i) Had the respondent dismissed the claimant under section 95(1)(c) of
the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“the Act”)?
(ii) If so, what was the reason or principal reason for that dismissal?
(iii) If the reason was potentially fair under section 98(2), was that
35
dismissal unfair under section 98(4) of the Act?
4103207/2020 (V) Page 2
(iv) If so, would a fair dismissal have resulted from a different procedure,
and if so what reduction in compensation should be made for that?
(v) Had the claimant contributed to any dismissal?
(vi) If there was an unfair dismissal, what was the extent of the claimant’s
losses, and had she mitigated her losses?
5
Evidence
3. Evidence in the case was given remotely by Cloud Video Platform. I was
satisfied that the method of doing so was effective, and that a decision
could be reached from it, although there were several occasions when the
audio quality was not good, and there was a need from time to time for
10
those participating to re-connect. When that happened the evidence
resumed from the point of lost connection. Whilst these difficulties made
conducting the hearing more difficult, particularly for the two solicitors, they
were not such as to cause insuperable problems.
4. The Tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, and from Mr Donald
15
Stewart and Dr Ross Stewart of the respondent. Documents were spoken
to from a single Bundle the parties had prepared. Not all documents in that
Bundle were spoken to in evidence. Although the earlier Preliminary
Hearing had referred to a Statement of Agreed Facts none had been
concluded, but the solicitors did reach agreement on the extent of pension
20
loss and the wages of the claimant when working three days per week.
Two aspects of the evidence were heard under reservation, firstly in
respect of a meeting between the claimant and Mr Stewart on or around
19 December 2019 which the claimant had not referred to in her pleadings,
and secondly discussions said to have been held between the claimant
25
and Mr Stewart in the period 7 November 2019 to 23 November 2019, and
possibly to 5 December 2019, which had not been put to the claimant in
cross examination. I refer to those matters further below.
5. The evidence was concluded mid way through the second day and the
solicitors had agreed that they wished to have time to prepare written
30
submissions. I agreed to that, and the submissions were duly tendered.
They are summarised below, and clearly had involved much work by both
agents. I am grateful to both for doing so.
To continue reading
Request your trial