We provide a wide range of advocacy and advisory services in the UK and internationally. We pride ourselves on our approachable and friendly outlook and our ability to build strong relationships with clients. Our barristers have received over 40 individual rankings covering 15 practice areas across the legal directories, including in Civil Fraud, Commercial Litigation, Insolvency and Travel amongst others. We are supported by a highly experienced, friendly and responsive practice management team, headed by James Donovan.
Tabitha Hutchison instructed for the Respondent
RESERVED JUDGMENT
It is the unanimous decision of the Tribunal that:
1 The Respondent did not directly discriminate against the Claimant because of his disability and his claim for direct discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 is dismissed.
2 The Respondent did not discriminate against the Claimant because of something arising in consequence of his disability and his claim for disability discrimination under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 is dismissed.
REASONS
1. The Claimant claimed disability discrimination: direct discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010; and discrimination arising under section 15 of the Act. The Respondent resisted the claims. (The Claimant had previously withdrawn his claim for unfair dismissal as he had less than two years’ service).
2. The Tribunal heard evidence from the Claimant and from the Claimant’s wife, Mrs Carolyn Copleston. On the Respondent’s behalf, the Tribunal heard evidence from Emma Hall (Director); Stephen Turner (Group Director); Gemma Walker (Deputy Principal at the relevant time); and Emma Wilde who is known as Emma Wilson (Administrator). The Tribunal was referred to a number of documents within a paginated bundle to which further documents were added before the Tribunal heard evidence and yet further documents during the course of the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing the parties made oral submissions.
3. The Claimant had failed to provide a witness statement in accordance with a case management order but wished to put in evidence his “Summary of Events” as his witness statement. This was permitted by the Tribunal.
Issues
4. At a preliminary hearing held on 2 August 2023, Employment Judge Martin ordered that a further preliminary hearing should take place to determine whether the Claimant was a disabled person at a material time by reason of Amyloidosis.
5. At a further preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Fowell on 13 December 2023, it was determined the Claimant
Continue reading this Judgment here.
Please subscribe here
Please contact us either by telephone: +44 (0)20 7415 7800 or email: clerks@3harecourt.com