Ms H Fynn-O’Neill v Study Group UK Ltd: 1807152/2020
| Judgment Date | 12 May 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Race Discrimination |
| Date | 12 May 2021 |
| Citation | 1807152/2020 |
| Published date | 20 May 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
Case Number: 1807152/2020
10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 March 2017
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Ms H Fynn-O’Neill
Respondent: Study Group UK Limited
Heard at: Sheffield On: 20 April 2021
Before: Employment Judge Brain
Representation
Claimant: Mr M S Sachdev, Caseworker
Respondent: Miss N Brown, Solicitor
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. Upon the claimant’s claims brought under the Equality Act 2010 and with
reference to paragraph 21 of the claimant’s draft amended statement of case
(at pages 81 to 90 of the respondent’s hearing bundle):
1.1. The extant complaints in sub- paragraphs (c), (d), (f), (g), (m), and (o)
were presented to the Employment Tribunal outside the limitation
period provided for by section 123 of the 2010 Act.
1.2. It is just and equitable to extend time to vest the Tribunal with
jurisdiction to deal with the extant complaints identified in
paragraph 1.1.
1.3. The claimant has permission to amend her claim to include the issues
identified in sub- paragraphs (a), (b), (e), (h), (i), (j), (k) and (l).
1.4. The claimant’s application to amend her claim to include the matters at
sub- paragraphs (n), (p) and (q) is refused.
2. Upon the claimant’s complaints under the Employment Rights Act 1996:
2.1. The extant claim that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction
from the claimant’s wages contrary to Part II of the 1996 Act in respect
of wages said to be payable at around the end of 2019 was presented
outside the limitation period provided for in section 23(2) of the 1996
Act in circumstances in which it was reasonably practicable to have
presented the complaint within the limitation period. Accordingly, the
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the complaint.
Case Number: 1807152/2020
10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 March 2017
2
2.2. The claimant’s application to amend her complaint to include one that
the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from her wages by
failing to pay her for 511 hours of work undertaken between October
2019 and August 2020 inclusive is refused.
REASONS
1. In Chandhok v Turkey [2015] IRLR 195, EAT Langstaff P (as he then was)
said in paragraph 16 that, “the claim, as set out in the ET1, is not something
to set the ball rolling, as an initial document necessary to comply with time
limits but which is otherwise free to be augmented by whatever the parties
choose to add or subtract merely upon their say so. Instead, it serves not
only a useful but a necessary function. It sets out the essential case. It is
that to which a respondent is required to respond. A respondent is not
required to answer a witness statement, nor a document, but the claims
made – meaning … the claim as set out in the ET1.”
2. He went on to say in paragraph 18 that, “… a system of justice involves
more than allowing parties at any time to raise the case which best seems
to suit the moment from their perspective. It requires each party to know in
essence what the other is saying, so they can properly meet it; so that they
can tell if a tribunal may have lost a jurisdiction on time grounds; so that the
costs incurred can be kept to those which are proportionate; so that the time
needed for a case, and the expenditure which goes hand in hand with it,
can be provided for both by the parties and by the tribunal itself, and enable
care to be taken that any one case does not deprive others of their fair share
of the resources of the system. It should provide focus on the central issues.
That is why there is a system of claim and response, and why an
employment tribunal should take very great care not to be diverted into
thinking that the essential case is to be found elsewhere than in the
pleadings.”
3. The prescience of the-then President’s words of the need for parties to
ensure that the entirety of their pleaded case is set out in the ET1 is well
illustrated by the complex procedural history of this matter. Although
matters were not assisted by the loss of time this morning due to missing
documentation and technical issues, such was the complexity that there
was simply insufficient time for me to deliver Judgment within the time
allocated for this open preliminary hearing.
4. I shall now set out the procedural history of the matter. Mandatory early
conciliation as required by section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act
1996 was both commenced by the claimant and finished on 11 September
2020. An early conciliation certificate (reference number R191616/20/16)
was issued to the claimant that day.
5. The claimant presented her claim form on 9 December 2020.
6. The matter benefited from a case management preliminary hearing which
was held in private and came before Employment Judge Cox on
17 February 2021. In the annexe to the record of that hearing sent to the
parties on 19 February 2021, Employment Judge Cox identified the
claimant’s complaints. It is worth setting these out in full:
To continue reading
Request your trial