Mr J V Heerden v Crendon Timber Engineering Ltd: 3309113/2022
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant has failed to satisfy the Tribunal that he had a physical impairment which had a substantial and long term effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities, within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, at the material time.[2]Accordingly, his complaint under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 is not well-founded and fails. Full Reasons having been delivered orally in Tribunal, the parties said that they did not require written reasons. _______________________________________ Employment Judge A Stewart Date 18 September 2023 Judgment sent to the parties on: 23/10/2023 FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE: N Gotecha Case number : 3309113/2022 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr J Van Heerden Respondent: Crendon Timber Engineering Ltd Heard at: Bury St Edmunds (CVP) On: 08 - 10 April 2024 Before: Employment Judge Laidler Members: Ms S Limerick Mr D Hart Representation: Claimant: Mr C Moore, Counsel Respondent: Ms A Beech, Counsel[1]The claimant did not make protected disclosures within the meaning of s47B Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA).[2]The claims that the claimant was subject to a detriment on the ground that he had made protected disclosures was submitted out of time. The tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine it, no evidence having been advanced as to why it was not reasonably practicable to have presented those claims in time.[3]In any event, the claimant was not subject to any detriment on the ground that he had made a protected disclosure contrary to the provisions of s47B ERA.[4]The reason, or if more than one the principal reason for the claimant’s dismissal was not the making of a protected disclosure contrary to s103A ERA.[5]The reason, or if more than one the principal reason for the claimant’s dismissal was not within the provisions of section 100 ERA Case number : 3309113/2022 2[6]The claimant was not wrongfully dismissed. He was dismissed in accordance with the contract of employment the employer being satisfied that he had bullied employees and committed a repudiatory breach of his contract entitling it to summarily dismiss him.[7]All claims fail and are dismissed.