Mr M Tarrant Mrs J Tarrant v 3L Care Limited and 2 others — 2019

The tribunal found that the real decision to remove Mr and Mrs Tarrant came from Mr Stock by the end of July 2017, with Rachel Collister then conducting a flawed investigation and Brian Higgins following Mr Stock's lead through the disciplinary process. It rejected the suggestion that the process was genuinely driven by the misconduct allegations as the reason for dismissal. The tribunal also held that Mr Higgins personally became liable only for the disability reasonable-adjustments failure concerning the disciplinary hearing for Mrs Tarrant.

Mr Tarrant's whistleblowing case failed. The tribunal rejected most of the July 2017 emails as protected disclosures and found that the key 21 July email about Mr Stock's decisions on cashflow and bank repayments was not made in the public interest. It accepted that the 24 July meeting included a disclosure about possible CQC breach and patient safety, but applying the Kraus approach it held that Mr Tarrant did not have a reasonable belief that such a breach was likely to occur. As a result, his detriment claim and automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 were dismissed.

Mr Tarrant succeeded on ordinary unfair dismissal, notice pay and unlawful deduction from wages. The tribunal held that the principal reason for his dismissal was the conflict with Mr Stock over how the business should be run, not misconduct, and that no gross misconduct was proved. It also found that his contractual notice entitlement had been breached and that the company had made an unlawful deduction by not reimbursing tax he paid on director's loan arrangements. No final remedy was quantified at this stage.

Mrs Tarrant's ordinary unfair dismissal claim also succeeded. The tribunal held that she was dismissed because of the same dispute about the business and because she could not remain once Mr Tarrant had gone. Her direct marriage discrimination claim failed because the tribunal found the treatment was not because she was married, but because of the couple's joint role in the business. Her harassment claim failed because the disciplinary correspondence was not found to be related to disability, even though it caused her distress.

The tribunal held that Mrs Tarrant was a disabled person from 17 August 2017 onwards by reason of anxiety. It found that the company knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of the disability once the fit notes and grievance correspondence were received. The reasonable-adjustments claim succeeded only in part: the tribunal held that postponing the investigation and disciplinary meetings would have been a reasonable adjustment, but the other proposed adjustments, including advance notice of allegations, a different format and a different venue, were not established on the pleaded PCPs. The adjustment claim succeeded against the company for both stages and against Mr Higgins personally for the disciplinary-hearing stage.