Claimant v Dover Harbour Board
Outcome
Individual claims
This is a reconsideration application concerning procedural matters and whether certain amendments should be allowed. The underlying constructive dismissal claim has not yet been determined on its merits. The tribunal confirmed the claimant pursues a claim for discriminatory constructive dismissal under the Equality Act 2010.
The claimant alleges failure to make reasonable adjustments in respect of autism, including in relation to failure to pay minimum wage. The tribunal confirmed PTSD would not be relied upon as a disability following the claimant's concession. The substantive claim has not yet been determined.
Harassment claims are part of the claimant's case under the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal judgment discusses these in the context of available remedies but does not determine the substantive allegations.
The claimant sought to amend to add age discrimination claims relating to failure to pay national minimum wage. The tribunal found this would be a new claim not contained in the original claim form. The reconsideration application was refused, meaning this proposed amendment remains rejected.
Facts
The claimant, who has autism, brought discrimination claims against Dover Harbour Board including constructive dismissal, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment. He does not have sufficient service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. Following a preliminary hearing in December 2024, the claimant applied for reconsideration of the judgment refusing certain amendments and clarifying the scope of his claims. He argued certain allegations were not new claims, sought to rely again on PTSD as a disability, and contended he had automatic unfair dismissal claims.
Decision
The tribunal refused the reconsideration application under Rule 72(1), finding no reasonable prospect of varying or revoking the original decision. The judge confirmed that new allegations raised after the claim form were indeed new claims requiring amendment, that the claimant had properly conceded not relying on PTSD as a disability, and that the claimant had no automatic unfair dismissal claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996 distinct from his discriminatory constructive dismissal claim under the Equality Act 2010.
Practical note
A discriminatory constructive dismissal claim under the Equality Act 2010 is distinct from an automatic unfair dismissal claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996, and reinstatement/re-engagement remedies are not available for Equality Act claims.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2301897/2023
- Decision date
- 10 February 2025
- Hearing type
- reconsideration
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No