Mr R Bryce v AMS Securities Limited — 2017

This was a reserved preliminary hearing on strike out and deposit orders, not a merits judgment. The tribunal refused to strike out any part of the case. It noted that the claimant had worked as a door supervisor from 8 July 2016 until dismissal by letter dated 30 January 2018, and that the respondent accepted he was disabled by reason of dyslexia and Asperger's syndrome, with awareness agreed from September 2017.

The tribunal made deposit orders of £100 each in relation to three venue-change allegations: detriment said to follow protected disclosures, detriment said to follow health and safety issues, and unfavourable treatment said to arise in consequence of disability. It found those allegations had little reasonable prospect of success because the claimant could not particularise the detriment or identify when, how, or how often his work pattern changed. In setting the deposit amount, the judge had regard to the claimant's means.

The three automatically unfair dismissal allegations based on protected disclosure, health and safety, and assertion of a statutory right were also found to have little reasonable prospect of success. The judge said the claimant did not have two years' continuous employment and, on the case he put forward, those matters were not his principal reason for dismissal. No deposit order was made on those dismissal allegations because the same factual questions would also be ventilated in the disability claims and little tribunal time would be saved.

The disability claims were not struck out and no deposit order was made on them. The tribunal said there were disputed factual issues about whether the need to carry and use handcuffs and UV spray arose from the claimant's disabilities, whether he was at a substantial disadvantage, whether the respondent knew or should have known of any disadvantage, and whether any treatment or restriction was justified or whether reasonable adjustments were required. It noted that the respondent did not object to a stab vest worn under his shirt or a body camera, but disputed handcuffs and UV spray in the door-security context. The tribunal also found that the claimant's non-compliance with case management orders was unsatisfactory, but not enough to strike out the claims because a fair hearing remained possible.