Case 1300354/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Simmonds-Clark – Lay Representative For the First v Mr Maratos - Consultant WRITTEN — 2019
- Case reference
- 1300354/2018
- Decision date
- 13 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Simmonds-Clark – Lay Representative For the First
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr O'Sullivan brought claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination against DSM Demolition Limited. Before deciding the substantive issues, the tribunal refused his application to add dyslexia to the disability claim because it was substantially out of time, would have required a postponement, and he could not clearly explain how it would change the case. The tribunal therefore proceeded on the left-hand injury pleaded originally.
On disability, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had fractured a finger and later experienced left arm and hand symptoms, including pain and nerve-related problems, but it did not accept that the evidence showed a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities at the material time. The tribunal found that the main restriction shown was an inability to do the heavy labour job he had been employed to do, which it regarded as beyond ordinary day-to-day activity. It also found that the impairment was not shown to be long-term at the date of dismissal, and that later surgery in December 2017, which cured the condition, could not affect the statutory assessment. The disability discrimination claim was therefore dismissed because the claimant was not disabled within s.6 EqA 2010.
On unfair dismissal, the issue was whether the claimant had two years' continuous employment. The tribunal found that the employment contract started on 2 November 2015, not on 19, 22 or 26 October 2015, and that the work done before 2 November was collateral to the contract and was not work under it. It accepted the respondent's records and found that the dismissal letter was received on 20 October 2017, but that the statutory effective date of termination was 27 October 2017 after the notice period under s.86 ERA 1996. As continuous employment ran from 2 November 2015 to 27 October 2017, the claimant did not have the two years required for an unfair dismissal claim, so that claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claimant sought to rely on a left-hand injury; an application to add dyslexia was refused as substantially out of time and because the claimant could not explain how it would affect the case. The tribunal held that the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of s.6 EqA 2010 at the material time because the impairment did not have a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed on continuity. The tribunal found that the contract of employment started on 2 November 2015, that the brief earlier work was collateral to the contract, and that the effective date of termination was 27 October 2017 after notice under s.86 ERA 1996. Continuous employment therefore fell short of two years. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.6 EqA 2010
- Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall (2008) ICR 431
- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.108 ERA 1996
- s.211(1)(a) ERA 1996
- Koenig v The Mind Gym (2013) EAT 0201/12
- s.86 ERA 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.