Mrs M Horwell (Lay Representative) For the v Respondent — 2023

Mr Horwell worked for Shenton Properties from 21 September 2015 and was dismissed on 28 July 2021. The tribunal accepted that he had been diagnosed with skin cancer in May 2016, that the respondents were aware of the condition, and that they had supported him with time off and full pay for treatment. It also found that after his wife resigned in December 2016 his role changed, with less work at Shenton Hall and more work accompanying the Boylands at their other homes.

The reasonable-adjustments claim arose from a September 2020 decision to allow another employee to quarantine at Shenton Hall. The tribunal held that this claim was presented out of time under section 123 EqA 2010, that there was no basis for extending time as just and equitable, and that it therefore lacked jurisdiction. It also found that the pleaded PCP was not applied to the claimant because he was not in residence at Shenton Hall, he had been told he need not attend during the relevant period, and the evidence did not show a substantial disadvantage in any event.

On the dismissal-related disability discrimination complaint, the tribunal found that the decision to consider redundancy had already been taken on 15 July 2021 before the claimant told Mr Boyland about his medical appointment on 2 August 2021. It accepted that Mr Boyland was annoyed by the late disclosure and by the expiry of the return ticket already booked for the claimant, but found that the claimant's disability and the need for treatment or oncology appointments played no part in the redundancy decision. The tribunal therefore dismissed the discrimination claim.

The tribunal also rejected the unfair dismissal claim. It found that the need for the claimant's services had diminished because the Boylands were spending less time in the UK, were giving up their Barbados home, and the claimant could no longer lawfully work for them in France or Switzerland. The tribunal held that there was a genuine redundancy situation, that consultation was carried out by telephone and was adequate in the circumstances, that the decision not to pool the claimant with Mr and Mrs Lock was within the employer's discretion, and that the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses under section 98(4) ERA 1996. No remedy was considered because all claims failed.