Claimant v Eastleigh Care Homes HR Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal determined at this preliminary hearing that the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at any time relevant to the proceedings, which was fatal to all his Equality Act claims. All such claims were therefore dismissed.
The tribunal determined that the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, therefore this claim could not succeed and was dismissed along with all other Equality Act claims.
The tribunal determined that the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, therefore this claim could not succeed and was dismissed along with all other Equality Act claims.
The claimant sought to amend his claim to rely on alternative statutory provisions for automatic unfair dismissal under s.100(1)(c) and detriments under s.44(1)(c) ERA 1996 in respect of the same facts previously claimed as whistleblowing. The tribunal allowed this limited amendment to proceed.
The claimant was permitted to amend to claim automatic unfair dismissal under s.100(1)(c) ERA 1996 (health and safety) in respect of the same facts previously claimed as protected disclosure automatic unfair dismissal. This claim remains to be determined at the substantive hearing.
The claimant was permitted to amend to claim detriments under s.44(1)(c) ERA 1996 (health and safety) in respect of the same facts previously claimed as protected disclosure detriments. This claim remains to be determined at the substantive hearing.
Facts
The claimant brought claims under the Equality Act 2010 (disability discrimination) and Employment Rights Act 1996 including whistleblowing and automatic unfair dismissal. The case proceeded to a preliminary hearing to determine whether the claimant met the definition of a disabled person. The claimant attended the hearing unrepresented and was noted to be impecunious. He sought to amend his claim to rely on alternative statutory provisions.
Decision
The tribunal determined that the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 and dismissed all discrimination claims. The tribunal allowed a limited amendment permitting the claimant to pursue health and safety automatic unfair dismissal and detriment claims under s.100(1)(c) and s.44(1)(c) ERA 1996 in respect of the same facts previously pleaded as whistleblowing. The respondent withdrew its deposit order application given the claimant's financial circumstances.
Practical note
Even where a claimant's disability status claim fails at a preliminary hearing, tribunals may allow amendments to pursue alternative statutory protections such as health and safety dismissal/detriment claims based on the same factual matrix.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1405194/2023
- Decision date
- 11 April 2024
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No