Case 4114277/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Mkwebu v The Aedan Burt Care Trust (ABC Trust) and 5 others — 2020
- Case reference
- 4114277/2019
- Decision date
- 4 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
Parties
7 namedClaimant
Mr I Mkwebu
Respondents
- The Aedan Burt Care Trust (ABC Trust)
- Represented by Mr D McFadzean Solicitor Elizabeth Sophia Jans
- Represented by Mr D McFadzean Solicitor Stephanie Burnside
- Represented by Mr D McFadzean Solicitor Victoria Elrick
- Represented by Mr D McFadzean Solicitor John Burt
- Represented by Mr D McFadzean Solicitor Aedan Burt
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on amendment, the claimant withdrew the claim against Ms Stephanie Burnside, which the tribunal dismissed under Rule 52. The judge considered the amendment application by applying Selkent and related authorities, and followed the Galilee approach in holding that disputed time-bar questions could be reserved for evidence rather than decided finally at the amendment stage. The application to add Ms Cath Carter, Mr Aeden Burt and Ms Fiona Mundy as new respondents was also refused.
Most of section A was refused. The tribunal refused new claims for direct race discrimination in training and promotion from 2014 to February 2017, harassment in February and April 2018, indirect race discrimination in May 2018, direct discrimination in July 2018, disability discrimination and marriage discrimination in July 2018, and rest-break and section 45A claims from February 2016 to September 2019. The judge found those matters were either out of time, too different from the original pleadings, insufficiently explained, or, in the case of the rest-break claim, plainly late with no adequate reason for the delay. The only section A matter allowed was further particulars of race harassment arising from the April 2018 incident and alleged acts in May and November 2018, with jurisdiction and time-bar reserved.
Section B was allowed in substance. The tribunal permitted the December 2019 grievance-hearing companion claim, the associated victimisation allegations, the March 2020 grievance-investigation victimisation claim, and the claims arising from the disciplinary procedure starting on 6 April 2020 and the summary dismissal letter of 5 May 2020, including the Equality Act, whistleblowing and unfair dismissal heads. The judge said the claimant could still pursue Ms Mundy’s alleged involvement through the first respondent rather than by adding her as a party, and the allowed amendments were left subject to later jurisdictional determination where time-bar remained in issue.
Claims and outcomes
17 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Refusal to permit attendance of a companion at a December 2019 grievance hearing under section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999; amendment allowed. | Other | — | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation claim linked to the December 2019 grievance-hearing companion issue; amendment allowed. | Other | — | — |
| Victimisation | Further particulars of victimisation based on an alleged inadequate investigation of the claimant's grievance in a March 2020 report; amendment allowed. | Other | — | — |
| Other | Equality Act 2010 sections 13 and 26 heads arising from the disciplinary procedure that started on 6 April 2020 and led to the dismissal letter of 5 May 2020; the order did not specify the protected characteristic. | Other | — | — |
| Victimisation | Equality Act 2010 section 27 head arising from the same disciplinary procedure and dismissal; amendment allowed. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure and detriment/dismissal heads under sections 47B and 103A ERA 1996 arising from the disciplinary procedure that began on 6 April 2020; amendment allowed. |
Legal tests applied
17 references- Selkent Bus Company v Moore
- Ali v Office for National Statistics
- Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster Ltd
- Housing Corporation v Bryant
- Galilee v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Barclays Bank plc v Kapur
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend on Sea Borough Council
- James W Cook & Co (Wivenhoe) Ltd v Tipper
- Drake International Services Ltd v Blue Arrow Ltd
- Mist v Derby Community HNS Trust
- Rawson v Doncaster NHS Primary Care Trust
- Newsquest (Herald and Times) Ltd v Keeping
- Amey Services Ltd v Aldridge
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.