Mr A Bhunnoo v Grid Defence Systems Ltd: 3303556/2018
JUDGMENT
[1]The Tribunal heard evidence on oath and read documents provided by the parties. From the evidence heard and read the Tribunal determined as follows. Disability – section 6 Equality Act 2010[2]The Claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Act. The complaints of Direct Disability Discrimination and Disability Related Harassment therefore fail and are dismissed. Full Merits Hearing[3]The case remains listed for a 7 day full merits hearing before a full Tribunal on 11-19 May 2020 commencing at 10.00am at the Employment Tribunals, 3rd Floor, Radius House, 51 Clarendon Road, Watford, Hertfordshire, WD17 1HP.[4]No further case management orders are required. No postponement of the full merits hearing will be granted unless there are exceptional and unforeseen circumstances. Reasons – rule 62 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013[5]Reasons for this judgment were given orally at the hearing. Written reasons will not be provided unless a written request is presented within 14 days of the date this judgment is sent to the parties. Case Number: 3303556/2018 Page 2 of 2 Public Access to Employment Tribunal Judgments[6]The parties are informed that all judgments and reasons for judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the Claimant and Respondent. _____________________________ Employment Judge Vowles ………………………………14/02/2020 Sent to the parties on: …………………………....................... ..19/02/2020 For the Tribunal Office Case No: 3303556/18 10.2 Judgment - rule 61 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr A Bhunnoo Respondent: GRID Defence Systems Limited Heard at Watford by CVP On: 22, 23, 24 and 25 November 2021 Before: Employment Judge Manley Mr D Sagar Mr C Surrey Representation Claimant: Mr I Wheaton, counsel Respondent: Mr G Anderson, counsel[1]The majority of the tribunal finds that there was no fundamental breach of contract by the respondent and therefore no dismissal.[2]The minority (Mr Sagar) finds that there was a fundamental breach of contract on 13 September 2017, in response to which the claimant resigned and there was a dismissal.[3]The decision of the majority means the claim for constructive unfair dismissal fails and is dismissed. Any claim for wrongful dismissal must also fail.[5]The claim for age discrimination and harassment fails and is dismissed