Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Claimant's application to add three senior employees (Executive Chairman, CEO, and Services Director) as additional respondents was refused. The Respondent (Incodia International Limited) accepts vicarious liability for the employees' alleged discriminatory conduct and is insured for such liabilities. The Employment Judge determined that permitting the amendment would cause greater hardship to the Respondent than to the Claimant, citing extended hearing times, individual prejudice to the employees, and the availability of comprehensive remedies against the already liable Respondent.
Issues
- The tribunal determined that adding the employees as respondents was unnecessary for justice, as the original Respondent (Incodia International Limited) accepts liability and is insured. The employees are already key witnesses, and the Claimant’s remedy against the company would remain comprehensive.
- The tribunal examined whether the three employees could be held personally liable for discriminatory conduct under s110 of the Equality Act 2010. It was noted that no claim was made that the employees directly instructed, caused, or aided the alleged discrimination.
- The tribunal considered the Claimant's application to add Mr. C Huckle, Mr. A Smith, and Mr. A Lock as additional individual respondents. The Respondent accepts vicarious liability for their conduct but argued against adding them due to procedural and practical challenges, including insurance coverage and potential prejudice to the Respondent.
- The Respondent, a large organization with a £16 million turnover, has indemnity insurance policies. It acknowledged potential obligations to claim under these policies if held vicariously liable for the employees’ discriminatory actions.
- The tribunal declined to address time limit extensions for claims against the individual respondents, citing insufficient time during the two-hour preliminary hearing. These matters were deferred to the substantive hearing in June 2021.
- The tribunal evaluated the hardship and injustice to both parties. It concluded that the Respondent’s exposure to extended proceedings and individual prejudice outweighed the Claimant’s potential disadvantage, leading to the refusal of the application.
- The tribunal found minimal prejudice to the Claimant by disallowing the amendment, as the Respondent’s insurance and acceptance of vicarious liability ensured a comprehensive remedy. The employees’ evidence would still be available through their role as key witnesses.
Holdings
- Adding the three employees as Respondents is not necessary for justice, as the agreed amendments to the Claim and the grievance outcome report already address the issues. The court declines to assess time limits for individual claims against the employees due to time constraints.
- The hardship and injustice to the Respondent (including extended hearing time and individual prejudice to the employees) outweigh the potential hardship to the Claimant. The court refuses the application to add the employees as Respondents based on this balance.
- The Respondent, a large organisation with £16 million turnover, has insurance policies to cover potential liability for the employees' discriminatory conduct. The Claimant's application to add the employees as Respondents is refused due to the Respondent's insurance coverage.
- The court refuses the application to add the three employees as Respondents due to the potential hardship and injustice to the Respondent, including the cost of separate representation and extended proceedings, which would prejudice the employees without clear advantage to the Claimant.
- The Respondent accepts vicarious liability for any acts of discrimination, harassment, and victimisation carried out by the three employees in the course of their employment. The Respondent does not invoke the defence under s109(4) of the Equality Act 2010.
- No claim is made against the three employees for personally instructing, causing, inducing, aiding, or helping discrimination under ss 111–112 of the Equality Act 2010. The application to add them as Respondents is refused as there is no pleaded personal liability.
- The Claimant's remedy against the Respondent (which accepts liability and is insured) is sufficient. The three employees will be key witnesses and can be cross-examined, so their inclusion as Respondents is not required for the Claimant's case.
Legal Principles
The court applied the principle of vicarious liability, determining that the Respondent (employer) is legally responsible for the discriminatory conduct of its senior employees in the course of their employment. The Respondent explicitly accepted this liability, and the tribunal concluded that adding the individual employees as respondents would not be necessary given the existing coverage of liability through the employer's insurance policies.
Precedent Name
Selkent Bus Co Limited v Moore
Cited Statute
Equality Act 2010
Judge Name
Elgot
Passage Text
- 2.2. The Respondent agrees that it is vicariously liable in law for any acts of discrimination, harassment and victimisation carried out by these employees in the course of their employment. There is no dispute that the alleged discriminatory conduct occurred in the course of their employment. The Respondent does not seek to invoke the defence under s109(4) Equality Act 2010. In other words, it accepts its liability for the acts of these three employees.
- 2.9. In all the circumstances of this case the hardship and injustice to the Respondent outweighs the hardship and injustice to the Claimant and the Claimant's application is refused.
- 2.7. The nature of the amendment is such that there is little prejudice to the Claimant in disallowing this amendment. He will have a comprehensive remedy against the Respondent which accepts liability for the conduct of all three employees and the Respondent is insured for this liability.