Ms M Gunn v Star International Enterprises Ltd T/a Auchingarrich Wildlife Park: 4108060/2022
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 April 2023 |
| Date | 11 April 2023 |
| Published date | 26 April 2023 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
| Citation | 4108060/2022 |
E.T. Z4 (WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
5
Case No: 4108060/2022
Final Hearing Held at Dundee on 3 – 5 April 2023
Employment Judge A Kemp
10
Ms Morna Gunn Claimant
In person
15
Star International Enterprises Ltd Respondent
t/a Auchingarrich Wildlife Park Represented by:
Ms Alexa Reid
Director
20
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The Judgment of the Tribunal is that the claimant was unfairly dismissed
and she is awarded the sum of TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND
25
EIGHTY SIX POUNDS AND NINETY THREE PENCE (£2,186.93) in
compensation, payable by the respondent.
30
REASONS
Introduction
1. This was a Final Hearing of the claim of unfair dismissal made by the
claimant against the respondent, held in person at the Dundee Tribunal.
Issues
35
2. I identified the issues for determination during the preliminary discussions
at the start of the hearing. The issues are:
4108060/2022 Page 2
(i) What was the reason, or principal reason, for the claimant’s
dismissal?
(ii) If potentially fair under section 98(2) of the Employment Rights Act
1996 was it fair or unfair under section 98(4) of that Act?
(iii) If the claim is successful, to what remedy is the claimant entitled?
5
3. On the last day of evidence the claimant produced her Early Conciliation
Certificate, which had not been in the Bundle of Documents. On the basis
of that I required to consider whether the claim was within the jurisdiction
of the Tribunal, as the answer to the point was not immediately obvious.
That and the other issues are addressed below.
10
Evidence
4. Evidence was given by the respondent first, commencing with that of
Ms Alexa Reid the appeal officer, then Mr Kevin Campbell. The dismissing
officer Mr Rob Matthews did not give evidence. The evidence of a witness
for the claimant, Mrs Maxine Scott, was heard first as she was not able to
15
attend on the third day of the hearing, then the claimant gave her
evidence, followed by Ms Shona Coutts.
5. The parties had prepared a Bundle of Documents, most but not all of which
was spoken to in evidence. At the commencement of the hearing Ms Reid
objected to two documents, the first being a list of staff and the second
20
being transcripts of conversations that had been recorded which she
considered to be slightly misleading where comments had been added.
She indicated that she wished to play parts of the recordings to show what
had happened, and the claimant did not oppose that. As it transpired the
claimant played some of the recordings during her cross examination of
25
Ms Reid. I considered that it was appropriate under Rules 41 and 2 to
allow the documents to be received, and address any points in relation to
them in the course of evidence.
6. The claimant also provided a Schedule of Loss which was received and
added to the Bundle at the start of the hearing. It sought an award of
30
around £15,000.
4108060/2022 Page 3
7. Neither party was legally represented, and the claimant had no experience
of such hearings. Ms Reid said that she did have some experience of
doing so. Before the hearing commenced I explained about the giving of
evidence, the nature of questioning in examination in chief, the role of
cross examination being to challenge evidence on fact given by the
5
witness that was disputed and put to the witness evidence he or she was
aware of which the other party would give evidence about. I explained
about re-examination being for matters raised in cross examination or
questions from me, and the need to ensure that all of the evidence is
referred to as the scope to introduce new evidence later is very limited
10
indeed. I explained that documents produced in the Bundle should be
referred to in oral evidence as otherwise they would not be considered,
and also as to the opportunity to make submissions.
8. During the hearing I asked a reasonably large number of questions in
order to elicit the facts under Rule 41, and having regard to the overriding
15
objective in Rule 2. Neither party appeared to me to have a full
understanding of Tribunal process, which is understandable as neither is
legally qualified, and I asked questions that I considered were appropriate,
some of which may have favoured the claimant and others the respondent.
I sought to do so in an even-handed way.
20
9. During the claimant’s examination in chief she referred to a written
statement she had prepared for the purpose of the present claim, which
the respondent had objected to. I referred to an email earlier sent on my
instruction with regard to that, which in summary said that only oral
evidence would be heard. The claimant said she had not received it. The
25
respondent had, and a copy was provided. It appears that it was sent to
an old email address of the claimant, which explained why she had not
seen it. Presidential Guidance indicates that written witness statements
are not the norm in Scotland, and are used only where ordered in an
appropriate case. No such order had been made in this case. That was
30
why oral evidence was to be heard, and I explained that to the claimant.
The claimant was permitted to read her written statement to check that
she had given all oral evidence she wished to, without objection from the
To continue reading
Request your trial