Case 1401206/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Banasiak v Tricuro Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 1401206/2022
- Decision date
- 9 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hay Tribunal
- Venue
- Southampton
- Panel members
- J Roddick, J Ratnayake
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Banasiak
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal and religion or belief discrimination after being dismissed because he declined to receive the Covid-19 vaccine while employed in a CQC-regulated care home. The respondent relied on the regulations that came into force on 11 November 2021, which prevented unvaccinated and non-medically exempt persons from working in such care homes.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint. It also dismissed the indirect discrimination complaints, finding that the claimant had not established on the balance of probabilities that his stated objection was a protected belief rather than an opinion. The tribunal went on to find that the vaccination requirement placed people sharing that position, and the claimant, at a disadvantage, but that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims including following the law, safeguarding residents, and avoiding reputational or financial damage.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal is not well-founded and is dismissed. The prompt text is truncated, but the dispositive judgment is clear. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment states that the complaints of indirect religion and belief discrimination are not well-founded and are dismissed. The prompt text is truncated, but the dispositive judgment is clear. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Employment Rights Act 1996 s98(1)(b)
- Employment Rights Act 1996 s98(4)
- Equality Act 2010 s10(2)
- Equality Act 2010 s19(2)(d)
- Grainger questions
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.