Mrs N Manning and Mr C Manning v Mr J Townsend and Ms M Behan: 3304549/2022 and 3304550/2022
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 December 2023 |
| Date | 19 December 2023 |
| Citation | 3304549/2022 and 3304550/2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 10 January 2024 |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
Case Number: 3304549/2022
3304550/2022
Page 1 of 24
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant
s
:
Respondent
s
:
(1) Mrs N Manning
(2) Mr C Manning
v Mr J Townsend (1)
Ms M Behan (2)
Heard at: Reading (via Video) On: 28 & 29 September 2023
Before: District Tribunal Judge Shields
(sitting
as an
Employment Judge
)
Appearances
For the Claimant
s
:
In person
For the
First
Respondent:
M
iss Johns
(
C
ounsel)
For the Second Respondent: Mr Macdonald (Counsel)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The first claimant was employed by the second respondent at the relevant time.
2. Any claims made by the first claimant against the first respondent are struck out. The claims
by the first claimant against the first respondent are dismissed.
3. The second claimant was employed by the first respondent at the relevant time.
4. Any claims made by the second claimant against the second respondent are struck out. The
claims made by the second claimant against the second respondent are dismissed.
5. The claim of sexual harassment by the first claimant is struck out under Employment Tribunal
Rule 37(1)(a) because it has no reasonable prospect of success. The claim is dismissed.
6. At the relevant times, the second claimant was a disabled person as defined by section 6
Equality Act 2010 because of his mental impairment, namely anxiety. The complaint of
disability discrimination can therefore proceed.
7. The second claimant is entitled to pursue a complaint of victimisation under the Equality Act
2010. The strike out application under Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) is dismissed.
8. The first claimant is permitted to amend her claim to include direct sex discrimination.
9. The claimants’ other complaints will proceed.
10. The cases are to remain linked together for hearing. A Case Management Preliminary
hearing is to be held, by video, on the first available date, before a Judge sitting alone, in
order to set out the directions for the cases to proceed to a final hearing. This will be a Case
Management Preliminary hearing, in private, with a time estimate of one morning or afternoon
session, with the Parties in attendance. A Notice of Hearing will be sent out in due course.
REASONS
Case Number: 3304549/2022
3304550/2022
Page 2 of 24
Introduction and parties
1. These are claims pursued by both claimants against the respondents. The first claimant was
employed as a housekeeper on a private estate, Newbottle Manor. The second claimant was
employed as a gardener/handyman on the same estate. The claimants assert that although they
were hired by the respective respondents separately, they were employed by both respondents
to work on the estate as a whole. It was a joint ‘couples’ position.
2. The respondents deny that there was a joint role and assert that the contracts were two separate
contracts between two separate entities. The first respondent states that they employed the
second claimant. The second respondent states that they employed the first claimant.
3. The first claimant commenced employment on 7 September 2021. Her employment
ended on 28 February 2022. The second claimant commenced employment on 31 August 2021
and his employment ended on 24 February 2022.
4. The claimants’ claims were presented on 13 April 2022 after early conciliation ran from 23 March
2022 to 25 March 2022 in respect of both respondents.
5. The first claimant has brought complaints of direct sex discrimination, sexual harassment and
victimisation under the Equality Act 2010. The Second Claimant has brought complaints of direct
disability discrimination and victimisation under the Equality Act 2010.
6. Both respondents presented an ET3 and grounds of resistance on or before 27 June 2022. The
respondents denied the claims.
Hearings and evidence
7. The respondents raised several preliminary issues. At a private preliminary hearing for case
management held on 24 January 2023, a public preliminary hearing was scheduled for 28 & 29
September 2023 to decide those preliminary issues. The hearing was listed as an in-person
hearing, however, the claimants have relocated to Scotland and asked that the hearing be heard
by CVP video. The hearing was converted to a fully remote hearing by CVP video. All Parties
joined remotely. The claimants joined remotely and were together. The respondents’ witnesses,
although separately represented by Counsel, were in one location. Their Counsel were
separately located from them and each other. When providing their evidence, the respondents’
witnesses were located in a separate room.
8. The respondents prepared a bundle for the preliminary hearing on 28 & 29 September 2023.
The page numbers ran to 422 pages. The claimants provided two additional documents on the
morning of the hearing. Counsel for the second respondent provided a skeleton argument. I
decided to allow the inclusion of these documents.
9. At the start of the hearing on 28 September 2023, I noted the second claimant’s claim of a
disability, due to anxiety, and discussed with the Parties and in particular, the second claimant,
as to any reasonable adjustments to the hearing under the Equal Treatment Bench Book. The
adjustments made were as follows: we would take regular breaks, a slower pace and there were
to be no tag or extended questions for the second claimant. If the second claimant needed to
take a break or if I considered he needed to take a break then we would do so. These were
adhered to throughout the two day hearing. I took some time for reading witness statements and
the documents referred to in them. I also asked each party for a list of documents in the bundle
To continue reading
Request your trial