Ms S Khan v The Law Society of England and Wales: 2200025/2020
| Judgment Date | 25 January 2021 |
| Citation | 2200025/2020 |
| Published date | 24 March 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
Case Number: 2200025/2020 (V)
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
Ms S Khan
v
The Law Society of England and Wales
Heard at: London Central by CVP On: 20 January 2021
Before: Employment Judge A James
Representation
For the Claimant: Did not attend and was not represented
For the Respondent: Ms K Newton QC, counsel
This has been a remote hearing. The form of remote hearing was video link
(Teams). A face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not safe or
practicable during the current national lockdown. Further, at the time of the
hearing, London Central Employment Tribunal was closed due to air quality
issues and HMCTS staff and judges are working remotely. There are very
limited opportunities for in-person hearings. The claimant had applied for a
postponement, on the basis that this hearing was not appropriate for a
remote hearing. That application was rejected for reasons which are set out
in detail below.
PRELIMINARY HEARING JUDGMENT
(1) The tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s claims
against the respondent and they are struck out because:
a. the claimant was not in the employment of the respondent or a
contract worker (sections 39 to 41 Equality Act 2010);
b. the claimant was not an office holder of the respondent (sections
49-52 Equality Act 2010);
c. the respondent was not acting as a qualifications body under
section 53 Equality Act 2010 in relation to any of the claimant’s
claims;
d. the claimant was not a worker under the definition contained within
either sections 43K or 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996;
(2) The tribunal potentially has jurisdiction to consider the claimant’s claims
because the claim form was potentially presented in time, at least in
Case Number: 2200025/2020 (V)
2
relation to the incidents complained of in October 2019. The question of
time limits would still have been a live issue for the tribunal to make a
further determination on, if the claims had not been struck out and were
proceeding. In particular, whether any of the alleged detriments which are
upheld amounted to conduct extending over a period; and if so, but the last
of them was before October 2019, was it reasonably practicable to present
them in time and/or would it be just and equitable to extend time (sections
48(3) Employment Rights Act 1996 and 123(1) Equality Act 2010).
REASONS
Structure of judgment
1. This judgement is structured as follows. First, the claims and issues are set
out. Second, there is a lengthy section in relation to the proceedings. Third,
are the findings of fact. Finally, in the conclusions section, the relevant law in
relation to each issue is set out, followed by the tribunal’s conclusions in
relation to each of those issues in turn.
Claims and issues
2. The claimant brings claims of victimisation following the making of complaints
of discrimination on grounds of race and/or religion or belief; and/or claims of
detriment on grounds of protected disclosures. The issues between the
parties which fall to be determined by the tribunal at the preliminary hearing
are as follows:
2.1. Whether the Claimant was an employee or contract worker for the
purposes of sections 39 to 41 of the Equality Act 2010 (‘EqA’);
2.2. Whether the Claimant was an office holder for the purposes of sections
49-52 EqA;
2.3. Whether, in relation to the claimant’s claims against the respondent, the
respondent was acting as a qualifications body under section 53 EqA. (I
record that this has been slightly refined from the issue identified by EJ
Welch on 10 June 2020);
2.4. Whether the Claimant was a worker for the purposes of either section 43K
or 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘ERA’); and
2.5. Whether the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the Claimant’s
complaints due to them having been presented out of time.
The Proceedings
3. The claim form (ET1) was submitted on 3 January 2020 but was initially
rejected. For reasons which are set out below, it was treated as having been
To continue reading
Request your trial