Mr Frank Lawson v Huntercombe (Granby One) Ltd — 2021

The claimant, Mr Frank Lawson, worked as a support worker at Eldertree Lodge from 21 August 2017 until his dismissal on 25 June 2020. The case arose from an incident on 29 February 2020 involving Patient X, who had a long-standing diagnosis of mild learning disability, autism spectrum disorder and ADHD and was known to behave aggressively and to use racial abuse. The claimant said Patient X had racially abused and attacked him and that he acted in self-defence under Maybo training. The holiday pay claim was withdrawn and dismissed by consent.

The tribunal found there were reasonable grounds for the respondent's belief that the claimant had assaulted Patient X. It relied on the CCTV footage, the claimant's and Patient X's statements, the injury evidence, and Miss Vousden's investigation report. The tribunal accepted that Patient X had presented in a threatening manner and may well have racially abused the claimant, but it found the footage showed the claimant initiated physical contact, could have removed himself to safety, and did not act in line with his Maybo training. It rejected the claimant's arguments about staffing shortages, police non-action, and the need for a further Maybo review.

On procedure, the tribunal held there was no need for a separate investigatory interview before the disciplinary hearing because the material already obtained was sufficient to justify proceeding. It did find a substantial procedural failing because the claimant was not shown the CCTV before or at the disciplinary hearing, but concluded that the defect was cured on appeal when he was allowed to view the footage with his union representative and again during the appeal hearing. Applying the overall fairness approach, the tribunal held the process was fair in all the circumstances.

The tribunal also found the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. It accepted Mr Owen and Mr Magunder's conclusion that the claimant had used inappropriate force, had opportunities to walk away, and had engaged in what the tribunal described as a serious fight with a vulnerable adult. The appeal was not upheld, and the unfair dismissal claim therefore failed.