Case 1403533/2022 · Employment Tribunal

In Person v Mr S. Davis, Inhouse Counsel — 2024

Case reference: 1403533/2022
Decision date: 3 January 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Smail Appearances
Venue: Exeter

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In Person

Respondent

Mr S. Davis, Inhouse Counsel

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal held that Mr T. Anderson was unfairly dismissed by Morrison Data Services Ltd. It found three main reasons for that conclusion: the respondent rejected the claimant's contention that he would recover sufficiently to perform his role within the foreseeable future without first obtaining up-to-date Occupational Health advice; the original dismissal decision was taken by the line manager rather than a more senior manager or senior HR manager, contrary to the respondent's own procedures; and, at the time of the original decision, the claimant had not been seen in person or even by video by management or Occupational Health, with all dealings having taken place by telephone.

The tribunal also upheld a claim for discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. It found that the respondent had not established that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, again because it rejected the claimant's contention that he would recover sufficiently to perform his role within the foreseeable future without seeking up-to-date Occupational Health advice, despite earlier Occupational Health advice suggesting that sufficient recovery would be made.

All other claims were dismissed. The judgment records that written reasons were requested and would follow, but it does not record any monetary award or split of remedy in the extracted text provided.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed for the reasons set out in paragraph 1 of the judgment, including the absence of up-to-date Occupational Health advice, departure from the respondent's procedures, and the fact that the original dismissal decision was taken by the line manager rather than a more senior manager or senior HR manager.	Upheld	—	—
Disability discrimination	The tribunal found dismissal amounted to discrimination arising from disability in breach of section 15 Equality Act 2010. It held the respondent had not shown that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, for the reasons given in the judgment.	Upheld	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.