Ms AB v Equinor UK Ltd: 2200855/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 November 2022 |
| Date | 14 November 2022 |
| Published date | 28 November 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 2200855/2021 |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
Case Number: 2200855/2021
1 of 69
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Ms AB
Respondent: Equinor UK Ltd
Heard at: London Central Employment Tribunal (in private by CVP)
On: 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22 September 2022 (23 September in
chambers)
Before: Employment Judge Adkin
Ms D Keyms
Mr D Shaw
Appearances:
For the claimant: in person
For the respondent: Mr C Stone, counsel
JUDGMENT
1. The following claims are not well founded and are dismissed:
1.1 Discrimination arising from disability (section 15 Equality Act 2010
(“EA”));
1.2 A failure to make reasonable adjustments (sections 20-21 EA);
1.3 Victimisation (section 27 EA);
1.4 Automatic unfair dismissal (whistleblowing) (section 103A Employment
Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”)).
2. An order for lifelong anonymisation under rule 50(3)(b) of the Employment
Tribunal (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, Schedule 1 ("the
Rules") will be made in a separate order in relation to the Claimant (“the Claimant”,
“AB”) and an alleged perpetrator of historic sexual harassment of the Claimant
(“XY”) which forms part of the background to the claims.
Case Number: 2200855/2021
2 of 69
WRITTEN REASONS
The Claim
1. The Claimant presented her claim on 23 February 2021.
2. An agreed list of issues is attached as an appendix to this claim, subject to some
modifications made as agreed during the course of the hearing in relation to
elements of the claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Procedure
3. This was a video hearing using CVP. The Claimant joined the video hearing from
one of the Tribunal rooms by video.
4. The Claimant sought to rely on an argument that she had been given wrong advice
by her solicitor about submission a claim to the Tribunal in support of a request that
the Tribunal exercise its just and equitable discretion to extend time in relation to
claims brought on the face of it out of time. The Respondent applied for disclosure
on the basis that privilege been waived and that we needed to see the complete
advice on this point.
5. The Tribunal granted the Respondent’s application in a qualified way. We ruled that
if the Claimant wanted to rely on correspondence which would ordinarily attract legal
professional privilege, she would be deemed to waive privilege in respect of all
communications with her solicitor during which she said she had been under a
misapprehension and she would be required to disclosure them to the Respondent.
The alternative was not to rely upon this evidence.
6. The Claimant decided not to waive privilege and accordingly we disregarded this
correspondence and followed that the Claimant could not rely upon error of her
solicitor as a reason why it was just and equitable to extend. There were other
arguments which felt to be considered.
7. The bundle did not comply with paragraph 24.4 of the Presidential Guidance on
remote and in-person hearings issued by the President of the Employment Tribunal’s
(England & Wales) on 14 September 2020. Some time was wasted and occasionally
confusion caused by the fact the electronic and hardcopy page numbers did not line
up. We acknowledge that Mr Stone diligently and efficiently identitied “electronic” as
well as hardcopy numbering during the public part of the hearing.
Evidence
8. The Tribunal heard evidence from the Claimant herself.
9. From the Respondent we heard oral evidence:
9.1. Catherine Allsop
Case Number: 2200855/2021
3 of 69
9.2. Margrethe Husebo
9.3. Margit Berger Rosland
9.4. Martin Devor
9.5. Sinead Pope
9.6. Bente Hovland
9.7. Rob Cross
9.8. Hanna Caroline Imig (statement only not oral evidence).
10. We received a hearing bundle of 1,394 and a supplementary bundle of 135 pages.
Findings of fact
Background
11. The Respondent is a UK based subsidiary of the national oil company of Norway,
which was previously called Statoil.
12. The Claimant is an accountant by training. She worked for the Respondent in the
finance function. The Claimant’s employment commenced on 15 March 2006 with
Statoil or a subsidiary in Baku, Azerbaijan. She reported to XY a manager in Baku
in the period 2006-2008. Thereafter she worked for a period in Norway.
13. On 30 August 2011 the Claimant’s employment commenced with the Respondent a
UK based subsidiary. She moved to London in 2012.
Disability
14. The parties agreed that the Claimant met the statutory definition of a disabled person
within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 from 13 January 2020 due to anxiety
and depression.
2014
15. There was an incident involving the Claimant and her line manager XY outside
Fortnum & Mason following a leaving dinner for a colleague on 21 January 2014.
16. This is the first of three allegations of sexual harassment, all of which are alleged to
have taken place after social events. These allegations made by the Claimant form
the background to her claims before this Tribunal, although not the substance of her
claims, which relate to subsequent events. This incident and the others have been
described by the Claimant in somewhat differing ways over the period 2015 to 2019
as part of grievance investigation processes and conversations with an expert
preparing a medico-legal report.
To continue reading
Request your trial