Ms S Asgill v Royal Dutch Shell UK and Others: 4105471/2020
| Judgment Date | 16 July 2021 |
| Citation | 4105471/2020 |
| Published date | 24 February 2022 |
| Date | 16 July 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Maternity and Pregnancy Rights |
E.T. Z4 (WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: 4105471/2020 5
Held in Glasgow by CVP on 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 June 2021
Employment Judge L Doherty
10
Ms Stephanie Asgill Claimant
Represented by:
Mr Milson, Counsel
instructed by:
15 Ms E McGlone,
Solicitor
Royal Dutch Shell UK First Respondent
20 Represented by:
Mr Brown, Counsel
Instructed by:
Burness Paull LLP
25 Shell UK Ltd Second Respondent
Represented by:
Mr Brown, Counsel
Instructed by:
Burness Paull LLP
30 Shell EP International Ltd (SEPIL) Third Respondent
Represented by:
Mr Brown, Counsel
Instructed by:
35 Burness Paull LLP
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that; 40
(1) the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear a claim against the third
respondent.
(2) the claim against the first respondent is dismissed on the grounds that it has
no reasonable prospects of success under Rule 37(1) (a) of the Employment
Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 (the Rules); 45
(3) the claim against the second respondent in respect of acts of discrimination
said to have taken place prior to 1 October 2020 is dismissed on the grounds
that it has no reasonable prospects of success under Rule 37(1) (a) of the
Rules.
E.T. Z4 (WR)
4105471/2020 Page 2
(4) the claim against the second respondent in respect of acts of discrimination
said to have taken place after 1 October 2020 will proceed, and a Preliminary
Hearing (PH) to consider any relevant case management issues and to
determine further procedure will be fixed.
5
REASONS
Background
1. The claimant presented a claim on 20 October 2020 in which she complains
of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 the (EQA), and unfair dismissal.
10
2. The claim was initially presented against seven respondents. Issue was taken
as to the tribunal’s jurisdiction to consider claims against four of those
respondents, and at a Preliminary Hearing (PH) in January for case
management purposes it was decided that a PH should be fixed to consider
whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the complaint against the
15
then second, fifth, sixth and seventh respondents, and to consider the
question of applicable law in the period prior to October 2020. After 1 October
2020 it is accepted that the claimant was employed by the now second
respondent and that she was subject to UK law from that date.
3. At the PH in January it was agreed that the claimant would provide additional
20
specification as to the basis upon which it is said that the then first and third
(now first and second) respondents are liable for all or any of the acts
complained of, by 10 February 2021.
4. This PH was fixed for 5 days to take place by way of CVP.
5. The claim was subsequently withdrawn against four respondents (Shell
25
International BV; Shell UK International and Production Ltd; Shell Offshore
(Personnel) Services BV; and Shell Iraq Petroleum Developments BV).
6. The claim continues to be pursued against the now first, second and third
respondents. It is accepted that the first and second respondent are subject
to the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It is not accepted that the third
30
respondent is subject to that jurisdiction. The third respondent’s ET3 sets out
the basis on which it is said the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear a claim
against it, and that it has entered appearance in these proceedings only for
the purpose of contesting jurisdiction.
The Preliminary Hearing
35
7. The claimant was represented by Mr Milsom, and all three respondents by
Mr Brown, both Counsel.
E.T. Z4 (WR)
4105471/2020 Page 3
8. A list of issues has been prepared, (but not agreed) in advance of the
preliminary hearing in the following terms;
FIRST RESPONDENT
Are there any reasonable prospects of the Claimant
establishing that the First Respondent has liability for any of the
5
acts complained of under the terms of the Equality Act 2010?
In particular:
1.1.1 With regard to any claims made pursuant to sections
109 and 110 of the Equality Act 2010:
Did the First Respondent at any time act as a
10
principal (as defined in the Equality Act 2010) in
respect of the Claimant?
Did any or all of the Second or Third Respondents
act as agents of the First Respondent in respect
of the Claimant?
15
1.1.2 With regard to any claims made pursuant to sections
111 and 112 of the Equality Act 2010:
Did any person within the First Respondent have
any knowledge of the Claimant, or her
circumstances, such that the First Respondent
20
could have instructed, caused, induced or
knowingly aided any discrimination in respect of
the Claimant?
If they did not, can the First Respondent have any
liability in respect of any alleged omissions in
25
respect of the Claimant?
SECOND RESPONDENT
The parties agree that the Claimant’s complaint of indirect
discrimination related to pregnancy or maternity should be
dismissed.
30
Are there any reasonable prospects of the Claimant showing
that the Second Respondent could have any liability in fact or
law for any of the alleged acts or omissions which pre-date the
employment of the Claimant by the Second Respondent on 1
October 2020? In particular:
35
2.2.1 Is it the case that the Second Respondent “delegated
responsibility to the Third Respondent for conducting [a]
restructure”, as is alleged?
To continue reading
Request your trial