Case 2402163/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Perrone v Procomm Site Services Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2402163/2019
- Decision date
- 4 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Perrone
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Perrone brought sexual-orientation discrimination claims arising out of his employment as a Yard Operative from 20 February 2017 to 2 October 2018. At this preliminary hearing the tribunal refused his 12 September 2019 application to amend the case to add a further claim based on his resignation on 2 October 2018. Applying Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore, the tribunal held that the proposed amendment was not a mere relabelling exercise, because the original particulars did not plead dismissal-related facts, the application was made very late, and no proper reason was given for the delay. The tribunal noted that a constructive dismissal cannot be an act of harassment in itself, although a dismissal can be a prohibited act under section 39(2)(c) of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal allowed the original direct discrimination and harassment claims on sexual-orientation grounds to be presented late, finding it just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010. It accepted that the claimant had mental health problems, that he had tried to resolve matters by grievance, and that the approximate two-month delay before ACAS contact did not materially affect the quality of the evidence. The tribunal also considered there was at least an arguable case that the earlier allegations from April 2017 to January 2018 could amount to conduct extending over a period within section 123(3) of the Equality Act 2010.
The respondent's application to strike out the victimisation claim, or alternatively to require a deposit, was refused. The tribunal found that the grievance outcome and the investigation of the grievance were at least arguable as a detriment in the context of the claimant's complaint of homophobic abuse, and it noted that Mr Upton had made repeated contact with the claimant, but only a small number of short interviews were conducted. The case was allowed to proceed to a further case management hearing and then to final hearing; no compensation was assessed at this stage.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Application to amend to add a further sexual-orientation discrimination claim based on the claimant's resignation/constructive dismissal on 2 October 2018 was refused. | Other | Sexual orientation | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Original direct discrimination claim on sexual-orientation grounds was allowed to be presented late and may proceed to final hearing. | Other | Sexual orientation | — |
| Harassment | Original harassment claim on sexual-orientation grounds was allowed to be presented late and may proceed to final hearing. | Other | Sexual orientation | — |
| Victimisation | Claim relating to the grievance outcome was not struck out and no deposit order was made; the tribunal allowed it to proceed. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore [1996] ICR 836
- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- s.123(3)(a) Equality Act 2010
- s.123(3)(b) Equality Act 2010
- rules 37 and 39 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Timothy James Consulting v Wilton [2015] ICR 764 EAT
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.