Groves V The House Of Commons Commission & Ors (Disability Discrimination : Burden of proof), Court of Appeal - United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal, May 21, 2013, [2013] UKEAT 0268_12_2105

Resolution Date:May 21, 2013
Issuing Organization:United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
Actores:Groves V The House Of Commons Commission & Ors (Disability Discrimination : Burden of proof)
 
FREE EXCERPT

Copyright 2013

Appeal No. UKEAT/0268/12/KN

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

FLEETBANK HOUSE, 2-6 SALISBURY SQUARE, LONDON EC4Y 8JX

At the Tribunal

On 21 May 2013

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK

MR A HARRIS

MR T HAYWOOD

MR M GROVES APPELLANT

THE HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

UKEAT/0268/12/KN

UKEAT/0268/12/KN

APPEARANCES

UKEAT/0268/12/KN

-5-

SUMMARY

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION - Burden of proof

Burden of proof provisions correctly applied to claim of DDA victimisation. Permissible conclusion reached by Employment Tribunal. Post-termination conduct of Claimant relevant to remedy issue; had it arisen at the end of a joint liability/remedy hearing.

HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK

Introduction

  1. Mr Groves, the Claimant, was employed by the Respondent, the House of Commons Commission, from 27 July 2009 until his dismissal by way of non-confirmation of his appointment following a period of probation on 16 April 2010. He presented a total of four forms ET1 to the London Central Employment Tribunal. The claims were combined and came on for initially an eight-day hearing in March 2011 before a Tribunal chaired by Employment Judge Glennie. After a further three days of deliberations in chambers, that Tribunal dismissed all his claims. Having given oral judgment, they then rejected an application by the Respondent for costs. Their Judgment with Reasons running to 30 pages was promulgated on 13 June 2011.

  2. The present appeal was first rejected on the paper sift by HHJ McMullen QC. However, at a rule 3(10) hearing before Langstaff P on 9 May 2012 the President was persuaded by counsel for the Claimant, then appearing under the ELAAS pro bono scheme at that Appellant-only hearing, to permit two grounds of appeal only to proceed to a full hearing. All other grounds were dismissed. An application by the Claimant for a review of the President's Judgment was rejected by an order dated 25 June 2012.

  3. The two live grounds of appeal were articulated in the President's rule 3(10) order dated 17 May 2012 in the following terms:

    ``(i) That the Employment Tribunal misapplied the burden of proof in deciding it was satisfied by the employer's explanation that the decision to dismiss by non-renewal of the Claimant's probationary employment was completely uninfluenced by the fact he had complained of discrimination against him on the ground of his disabilities, particularly by regarding the fact that it could...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL