Ms Z v Middleton Murray Ltd (in liquidation) and Others: 2201669/2018 and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 January 2023 |
| Date | 19 January 2023 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 01 February 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Breach of Contract |
Case Numbers: 2201669/2018, 2204671/2018 and 2200424/2021
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Ms Z
Respondents: (1) Middleton Murray Limited (in liquidation) (R1)
(2) Ian Greaves (R2)
(3) Tyrone Corsinie (R3)
(4) Danny Harrer (R4)
(5) Sharon Palmer (R5)
(6) Julie Deschamps (R6)
(7) Hiscox Insurance Company Limited (R7)
Heard at: London Central (in person) On: 14, 15, 16, 20 & 22 June
and 7 & 8 July 2022
Before: Employment Judge E Burns
Ms N Sandler
Mr P Secher
Appearances:
For the Claimant:
In person
For the First, Second, Third, Fourth
and Fifth Respondents:
Did not attend
For the Sixth Respondent:
Mr Pullen, pro bono Counsel
For the Seventh Respondent:
Helen Bell, Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that all of the Claimant’s
claims fail and are dismissed.
REASONS
THE CLAIMS AND ISSUES
1. In this Judgment, we refer to the First Respondent as R1 in this judgment,
but to each of the individual respondents by name. The seventh Respondent
is referred to as R7.
Case Numbers: 2201669/2018, 2204671/2018 and 2200424/2021
2
2. The purpose of the hearing was to decide liability in relation to three claims
arising from the Claimant’s employment with the R1. That employment
commenced on 31 July 2017 and finished when the Claimant resigned with
immediate effect on 29 March 2018.
3. The litigation had a long and complicated procedural history prior to reaching
the final hearing. It is not necessary to recite that entire history here. The
claims were presented as follows:
(a) The Claimant presented her first claim, under case number
2201668/2018 (Claim 1) against R1, Ian Greaves and Tyrone Corsinie
on 11 March 2018. We do not know the dates when she commenced
and finished early conciliation.
(b) The Claimant presented her second claim under case number under
case number 2204671/2018 (Claim 2) against R1, Mr Greaves, Mr
Corsinie Tyrone, Danny Harrer, Sharon Palmer, Julie Deschamps and a
further respondent on 24 May 2018. We do not know the dates when she
commenced and finished early conciliation. The claim against the
additional respondent was struck out on 5 January 2022.
(c) The Claimant presented her third claim against R7 under case number
2200424/2021 on 1 February 2021 following a period of early conciliation
which started and ended on 27 January 2021.
4. At a preliminary hearing held on 15 and 16 September 2021, the Tribunal
made an Order under Rule 50(3)(a) that the Claimant’s medical evidence
and condition should not form part of any public hearing, or otherwise be
disclosed to the public by any party, and that the public record should refer
only to the Claimant having a “medical condition.” When drafting this
reserved judgment, the panel initially sought to limit our references
accordingly. We have, however, found it necessary to include more detail
than this allows. Accordingly, we have decided on our own volition to make
a further Rule 50 order and anonymise the Claimant. This is made to protect
her Article 8 rights. In making this order we have considered the competing
rights in Article 6 and Article 10. Our decision is that the Claimant’s Article 8
rights override those rights in this case.
5. We have also made a decision under Rule 50 to anonymise the names of
some third parties referred to in the evidence. These were learners that the
Claimant taught. It is not necessary to know their names to understand our
decision. We have anonymised them because we believe them to be
minors.
6. The issues to be determined were as set out in the case management order
of Employment Judge Davidson following discussion at a case management
hearing on 11 April 20219. That order was sent to the parties on 10 May
2019. The issues which were identified are set out in the appendix to this
judgment.
Case Numbers: 2201669/2018, 2204671/2018 and 2200424/2021
3
7. The list of issues provided somewhat generic descriptions of the conduct
about which the Claimant made allegations. In addition, it does not specify
the adjustments sought by the Claimant. We sought to address this during
the course of the hearing. The precise detail of how we have approached
this is set out in our analysis and conclusions section. The respondents
present at the hearing accepted that the Claimant met the definition of a
disabled person contained in the Equality Act 2010.
8. The Claimant’s claim against R7 is brought pursuant to the Third Parties
(Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (the Act). R7 does not dispute that the
Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the claim brought against it pursuant to
the Act. It accepts that it has a potential liability under the Act to the Claimant
if:
a) she succeeds in establishing liability against R1 (not the other
respondents) for disability discrimination; and
b) there is a determination that such acts of disability discrimination caused
her personal injury.
9. We are satisfied, having reviewed the relevant legal provisions and the
insurance policy that this position is legally correct.
10. The Claimant gave us detailed opening and closing submissions in writing.
We note that in addition to the claims referred to in the list of issues, these
specifically refer to her bringing the following:
(a) Claims under the Data Protection Act 1998;
(b) Claims under section 3(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at
Work Regulations 1998;
(c) Claims for constructive dismissal under section 95(1)(c) and section
136(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
11. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the first two of these and we
confirmed this to the Claimant at the hearing. We have not therefore made
any findings in relation to such claims.
12. One of the Claimant’s claims did originally refer to a claim for constructive
unfair dismissal claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Claimant
withdrew the claim at an earlier stage in the proceedings, however, because
she did not have the requisite two years’ service to being such a claim under
section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. She was given permission
to substitute a complaint of wrongful dismissal for it (1693). We have not
therefore made any finding in relation to constructive unfair dismissal
pursuant to the Employment Rights Act 1998.
13. Finally in relation to the issues, the Claimant’s submissions also made
reference to two cases: Green v Deutsche Bank (no citation) and Majrowski
v Guys and St Thomas’s NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34. The first is an
To continue reading
Request your trial