UK Employment Tribunal Case Analysis: Ms. K Hargreaves vs. Ian Ambrose & Others

 

Background

Claimant: Ms. K Hargreaves 

Respondents: Ian Ambrose & Others 

Hearing Location: Manchester (via cloud video platform) 

Presiding Judge: Employment Judge Sharkett 

Representation:

Claimant: Representing herself

Respondent (Mr. K Swindlehurst, R5): Represented by Mr. K Swindlehurst himself

Date of Hearing: 30th August 2023

Preliminary Hearing Judgment

The tribunal made the following determinations:

1. It is just and equitable to extend the time for the claimant to bring her claim against Mr. K Swindlehurst (R5).

2. The application by Mr. K Swindlehurst (R5) to have the claim against him struck out on the grounds that it has no reasonable prospects of success is refused.

3. The claimant’s claims of age and sex discrimination against all respondents are dismissed upon her withdrawal.

4. All remaining claims will proceed in accordance with the case management orders already in force.

Reasons for the Judgment

Ms. Hargreaves originally pursued claims of age and sex discrimination, which she has since withdrawn. She is now focusing on claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. She has directed these complaints against five respondents, all of whom were either her employers or colleagues prior to the events leading to the claim.

Key Points and Timelines

 - Employment Termination: Ms. Hargreaves' employment was terminated on 23rd May 2022 due to redundancy.

- Alleged Act of Discrimination: The alleged act of disability discrimination occurred in November 2021.

- Early Conciliation (EC):

  - EC against all respondents (except R4) commenced on 9th June 2022.

  - EC against R4 commenced on 15th June 2022.

  - EC certificates were issued as follows:

    - R1, R2, R3: 20th July 2022

    - R4, R5: 26th July 2022

 The "stop the clock" provisions extended the time limit for submitting a claim to the Employment Tribunal to 2nd October 2022 for all respondents except R5. For R5, the time limit was extended to 18th September 2022. Ms. Hargreaves submitted her ET1 (claim form) against all respondents on 26th September 2022, making the claim against R5 eight days late.

 Submissions and Arguments

 - Claimant's Submission:

  - Ms. Hargreaves attributed her delay in filing against R5 to her mental health condition, which hindered her awareness of the earlier submission deadline.

  - She contended that the allegations against R5 were part of a broader course of conduct involving all respondents.

  - She argued that R5 had been aware of her complaint since November 2022 and would not be prejudiced by the claim proceeding, as he would likely be called as a witness regardless.

  - She disputed R5's claim of ignorance regarding her mental health, stating it was widely known in the office.

 - Respondent's (R5) Submission:

  - Mr. Swindlehurst argued that it was inappropriate for him to be named as a respondent since he could not comment on allegations against other respondents.

  - He asserted that his response to the claimant's allegation was appropriate and that he was unaware of her mental health issues.

  - He mentioned that he was no longer employed by First Legal Solicitors (R4) but had been informed of the complaint against him.

 Legal Framework and Analysis

 Time Limit Extension (Equality Act 2010, s123(1) & s123(3))

 Tribunals have discretion to extend time for discrimination claims if it is just and equitable to do so.

Factors considered include:

- Length and reason for the delay

- Impact of delay on evidence cogency

- Respondent’s cooperation with information requests

- Claimant's promptness in acting upon the facts giving rise to the claim

- Balance of hardship and injustice to the parties

Strike Out Applications (Rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure)

 A claim can be struck out if it has no reasonable prospects of success. However, the threshold for strike out in discrimination cases is high. The principles include:

- Claims should generally not be struck out unless they are clearly without merit.

- Core factual issues should be resolved through oral evidence.

- Claimant’s case is taken at its highest unless conclusively disproved by documents.

 Conclusion

 The tribunal concluded that:

 - Extending the time for Ms. Hargreaves' claim against R5 is just and equitable. The short delay of eight days does not prejudice the evidence, especially given R5's prepared witness statement.

- The claim involves complex factual disputes regarding the alleged discrimination and the claimant’s mental health, necessitating a full hearing with oral evidence.

- Therefore, the application by R5 to strike out the claim was refused.

 Next Steps

 A preliminary hearing was scheduled for 18th September 2023 to further determine the issue of disability discrimination. The remaining claims will proceed as per the case management orders.

A Further Explanation of the Above Case

Understanding Preliminary Hearings in Employment Tribunals:

Background

In employment tribunals, preliminary hearings serve as an initial step to clarify issues, determine procedural matters, and manage the case moving forward. This process was exemplified in the recent case involving Ms. K Hargreaves and Ian Ambrose & Others, heard in Manchester via a cloud video platform and presided over by Employment Judge Sharkett on August 30, 2023.

The Case of Ms. K Hargreaves

Ms. Hargreaves, representing herself, brought a case against multiple respondents, including Mr. K Swindlehurst (referred to as R5), who also represented himself. The preliminary hearing resulted in several key determinations. 

Firstly, the tribunal decided it was just and equitable to extend the time for Ms. Hargreaves to bring her claim against Mr. Swindlehurst, despite the claim being eight days late. Secondly, the tribunal refused Mr. Swindlehurst’s application to have the claim against him struck out on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospects of success. Additionally, Ms. Hargreaves’ claims of age and sex discrimination were dismissed upon her withdrawal. Finally, it was decided that all remaining claims would proceed in accordance with existing case management orders.

Reasoning Behind the Judgment

Initially, Ms. Hargreaves had pursued claims of age and sex discrimination, which she later withdrew to focus on claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. These complaints were directed against five respondents, all of whom were either her employers or colleagues prior to the events leading to the claim. Her employment had been terminated on May 23, 2022, due to redundancy, and the alleged act of disability discrimination occurred in November 2021.

Ms. Hargreaves began the Early Conciliation (EC) process against all respondents except one (R4) on June 9, 2022, and against R4 on June 15, 2022. The EC certificates for respondents R1, R2, and R3 were issued on July 20, 2022, while those for R4 and R5 were issued on July 26, 2022. The "stop the clock" provisions extended the time limit for submitting a claim to the Employment Tribunal to October 2, 2022, for all respondents except R5, whose deadline was September 18, 2022. Ms. Hargreaves submitted her ET1 (claim form) against all respondents on September 26, 2022, making the claim against R5 eight days late.

Submissions from Both Parties

Ms. Hargreaves explained that her mental health condition hindered her awareness of the earlier submission deadline, attributing the delay to her attempts to deal with matters internally. She argued that the allegations against R5 were part of a broader course of conduct involving all respondents and that R5 had been aware of her complaint since November 2022. She also disputed R5’s claim of ignorance regarding her mental health, asserting that it was widely known in the office.

On the other hand, Mr. Swindlehurst argued that it was inappropriate for him to be named as a respondent since he could not comment on allegations against others. He maintained that his response to the claimant’s allegation was appropriate and that he was unaware of her mental health issues. He also noted that he was no longer employed by First Legal Solicitors (R4) but had been informed of the complaint against him.

Legal Analysis and Conclusion

Under the Equality Act 2010, tribunals have the discretion to extend time for discrimination claims if it is just and equitable. The tribunal considered factors such as the length and reason for the delay, the impact of the delay on evidence, the respondent’s cooperation, the claimant’s promptness, and the balance of hardship and injustice. 

In this case, the tribunal found that extending the time for Ms. Hargreaves' claim against R5 was just and equitable. The short delay of eight days did not prejudice the evidence, especially given R5's prepared witness statement. Furthermore, the tribunal emphasized that discrimination claims should not be struck out unless clearly without merit, and that core factual issues should be resolved through oral evidence.

The tribunal concluded that the complex factual disputes regarding the alleged discrimination and the claimant’s mental health necessitated a full hearing with oral evidence. Therefore, R5's application to strike out the claim was refused.

Moving Forward

A further preliminary hearing was scheduled for September 18, 2023, to address the issue of disability discrimination. The remaining claims will proceed as per the case management orders.

Importance for Research

This case highlights the procedural intricacies of employment tribunal proceedings, particularly in discrimination and unfair dismissal claims. It underscores the conditions under which time limits may be extended and the high threshold for striking out discrimination claims. The tribunal’s detailed reasoning provides valuable insights into the application of legal principles in employment disputes, illustrating the importance of preliminary hearings in ensuring that all relevant issues are adequately addressed before the main hearing.