Mr N. Smith (Counsel) v Respondent — 2021

This was a preliminary-issues judgment only. On protected disclosures, the Tribunal held that Professor Pawlak did not make protected disclosures in either the 15 September 2015 email to Professor Thornton or the 7 April 2016 appeal letter to Jacqui Marshall. Although the appeal letter raised allegations of race discrimination, disability discrimination, bullying and contractual breaches, the Tribunal found that he was defending himself in disciplinary proceedings and did not, in fact, believe he was making disclosures in the public interest. The whistleblowing detriment claims were therefore dismissed.

On disability, the Tribunal found that Professor Pawlak was disabled within s.6 and Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010 from 13 December 2018 with recurrent depressive disorder and not before. It held that the Respondent had knowledge of that disability from the occupational health report dated 2 July 2019. For Dr Skrzypiec, the Tribunal found disability from 24 February 2017 with a mental impairment and not before; it held that the Respondent had actual knowledge on receipt of the sick note dated 2 January 2018 and would not reasonably have been expected to know earlier than 13 November 2017.

The Tribunal then considered limitation under s.123 Equality Act 2010. It found there was no continuing act after the disciplinary appeal outcome on 20 May 2016. It was not just and equitable to extend time for Professor Pawlak's Equality Act claims in relation to the appeal outcome and anything before it, and likewise not just and equitable to extend time for Dr Skrzypiec's Equality Act claims in relation to anything on or before 20 May 2016. In reaching that conclusion, the Tribunal relied on the claimants' informed decision not to bring claims at the end of the disciplinary process, the delay until issue on 30 September 2018, and the absence of material evidential prejudice to the University.

On 15 March 2021 the claimants withdrew the remainder of the claims. The Tribunal recorded that those claims were not dismissed because the claimants wished to pursue related personal injury claims in the High Court. No remedy was determined in this preliminary judgment.