Ms Z Hilton-Webb v Minis Childcare Ltd: 2304382/2019
| Judgment Date | 06 August 2021 |
| Citation | 2304382/2019 |
| Published date | 17 August 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
Case No: 2304382/2019 (V)
Page 1 of 69
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Ms Z Hilton-Webb
Respondent: Minis Childcare Ltd
Heard at: London South (Croydon) by CVP
On: 1-4 and 8-9 February 2021 and in chambers 17-19 February, 23 & 24 March
and 8, 15 and 19 April 2021
Before:
Employment Judge Tsamados
With members:
Dr S Chacko
Mr S Townsend
Representation
Claimant: Mr J Cook Counsel
Respondent: Mr D Green, Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The unanimous Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is as follows:
1) The Claimant’s complaints of direct disability discrimination,
discrimination arising from disability, indirect disability discrimination
(save as set out in paragraph 2) below), failure to make reasonable
adjustments, harassment and victimisation, are unfounded and are
dismissed.
2) The Claimant was subjected to unlawful indirect disability discrimination
by the Respondent in respect of paragraph 16.4 of the Agreed List of
Issues.
Case No: 2304382/2019 (V)
Page 2 of 69
3) We invite the parties to seek to resolve the issue of remedy between
themselves and to let the Employment Tribunal know by 1 October 2021
if they require a remedy hearing. The matter will be listed for a one day
remedy hearing if so required.
REASONS
This hearing
1. This hearing was conducted remotely using the HMCTS Cloud Video
Platform (CVP). There were numerous occasions on which there were
connectivity problems that led to some time being lost in resolving them.
However, we were able to overcome these problems and proceed with the
hearing.
2. The case was originally listed for 7 days but for reasons set out below we
were only able to sit for 6. We heard evidence and submissions over 1-4 and
8-9 February 2021. We then deliberated in chambers on 17-19 February, 23
and 24 March, 8, 15, and 19 April 2021 in order to reach our Judgment. The
reason for the amount of time we spent in chambers was the complexity of
the complaints and issues and the number/types of claims as well as the
extent of the written submissions provided by each party. The Claimant’s
submissions ran to 47 pages and the Respondent’s to 71.
Claims and Issues
3. By a Claim Form received by the Employment Tribunal on 11 October 2019
following a period of Early Conciliation between 12 and 20 September 2019,
Ms Hilton-Webb (the Claimant) brought complaints of disability discrimination
against her ex-employer, Millennium Minis Ltd and Minis Childcare Ltd (the
Respondents). In the Response received on 14 November 2019, the
Respondents denied the Claim in its entirety.
4. A Preliminary Hearing on Case Management was held on 8 April 2020 and
conducted by Employment Judge (EJ) Hyams-Parish. The Claimant was
represented by Mr Cook and the Respondents by Mr O’Keefe, an HR
consultant. EJ Hyams-Parish listed the case for hearing for 7 days from 1-9
February 2021, dealt with practical matters necessary for the hearing,
identified that the correct Respondent was Minis Childcare Ltd, determined
the claims and issues and set case management orders to prepare the case
for the hearing.
5. Mr Cook had provided a list of issues for that hearing and this has been
agreed between the parties and is at pages 62 to 74 of the bundle. In
essence, the Claimant has brought complaints of direct disability
discrimination under sections 13 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010 (EQA),
discrimination arising from disability under section 15 EQA, indirect disability
discrimination under section 19 EQA, failure to make reasonable adjustments
under sections 20 and 21 EQA, harassment related to disability under section
Case No: 2304382/2019 (V)
Page 3 of 69
26 EQA and victimisation under section 27 EQA.
Evidence
6. We were provided with electronic copies of all documents.
7. The Respondent provided us with a bundle of documents which contained
820 pages and a separate index. Where necessary we refer to this as “B”
followed by the relevant page number(s). Unfortunately, the page numbers
in the PDF file containing the bundle did not precisely tally with all of the page
numbers set out in the index. This did cause some delay in navigating the
electronic bundle, although some of the witnesses had hard copies of it.
8. We heard evidence from the Claimant and on her behalf from her mother, Dr
Caroline Hilton, and from a family friend, Mr Venti Costantini. This was by
way of witness statements and in oral testimony.
9. We heard evidence on behalf of the Respondent from Mrs Julie Coakley, the
Nursery Director, Mrs Lorraine Smith, the then Nursery Manager, Mrs Tina
Dellis, the current Nursery Manager, and from Mr Ben Hutchins, the “owner”
and Director, by way of witness statements and in oral testimony.
10. The record of the Preliminary Hearing on Case Management held on 8 April
2020 made reference to a video recording which the Respondent wished to
present in evidence. EJ Hyams-Parrish directed the Respondent to make
arrangements to review this video at our hearing if it was still considered
necessary for us to see it. Mr Green, representing the respondent, told us
that whilst no formal arrangements had been made to present the video in
evidence, it was available on You Tube. Mr Cook, representing the claimant,
did not object to this but did ask us to view the whole of the clip and not a
portion of it as had previously been suggested. We were subsequently sent
the link to the video which is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t58mtaWDzos and we viewed it in its
entirety.
Preliminary matters
Adjustments to the proceedings
11. On the first day of the hearing, we enquired as to whether there were any
adjustments that the Tribunal needed to make to the proceedings in respect
of the Claimant’s disabilities. Mr Cook stated that the Claimant required the
assistance of her father to navigate the electronic documents and to magnify
them so that she could read them. He explained that as a result the Claimant
would need more time to find the documents and have passages from them
put to her. Mr Cook added that it had been made clear to the Claimant’s
father that he was not allowed to give any substantive input into the evidence
beyond this. Mr Green did not object to this and added that he was cognisant
of the Claimant’s hearing impairment and that she was welcome to ask him
if she needed him to repeat anything he said at any time. The Tribunal
To continue reading
Request your trial