Case 1402453/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Clapham v Chillaway Express Special Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1402453/2021
- Decision date
- 6 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge David Hughes
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- Ms M Luscombe-Watts, Mrs L Simmonds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Clapham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Clapham worked for Chillaway Express Special Ltd from 28 January 2019 to 15 March 2021 as a shift manager/transport planner. The respondent conceded that he was disabled for Equality Act purposes, with chronic fatigue syndrome as the relevant condition, and the tribunal found the respondent had constructive knowledge of that disability by 20 October 2020 when it knew he had been off sick for months and had been referred for investigation of possible CFS.
On the section 15 Equality Act claim, the tribunal found that dismissal was unfavourable treatment arising from the claimant's sickness absence. It accepted that the respondent had a legitimate business aim in a small company operating under pandemic pressure, and that it had tried to engage with the claimant over many months by arranging welfare and capability meetings, seeking medical information from his GP, discussing adjustments and an alternative role, and later offering an occupational health referral on appeal. Applying proportionality, the tribunal held that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving that aim, so the discrimination claim was dismissed.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was capability/ill health within section 98(2)(a) ERA 1996. It held that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant was no longer capable of performing his duties, adequately consulted him, and carried out a reasonable investigation. Although the tribunal said it would have been better to obtain more medical input, it interpreted the sickness absence policy as requiring the respondent to use its best endeavours to obtain up-to-date medical advice, and noted that the claimant did not cooperate with the proposed occupational health step after the appeal. The tribunal concluded that the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses and that the procedure was fair, so the unfair dismissal claim was also dismissed. No monetary remedy was awarded because both claims failed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The respondent conceded disability at the hearing, identifying chronic fatigue syndrome as the relevant condition. The tribunal found constructive knowledge by 20 October 2020, but held that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the respondent's legitimate aim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was capability/ill health, that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant was no longer capable of performing his duties, consulted him adequately, carried out a reasonable investigation, and acted within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.98(2)(a) and s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Polkey
- Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews
- implied term/business efficacy
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.