Case 1404169/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 1404169/2023
- Decision date
- 28 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail
- Venue
- Bodmin
- Panel members
- Mr K. Sleeth, Ms E. Smillie
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the Respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have known, that the Claimant's Mixed Anxiety and Depressive Disorder was likely to last 12 months and so constitute a disability until receipt of the Claimant's solicitors' letter dated 13 April 2023, some 8 months after he was first signed off on 11 August 2022. From that point the disability was established for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal upheld three Equality Act claims arising from the Respondent's failure to hear the Claimant's appeal (which itself alleged disability discrimination) despite having granted an extension of time: discrimination arising from disability under s.15, harassment related to disability under s.26, and victimisation under s.27. The tribunal rejected the Respondent's explanation that the appeal had been lost among other matters such as a subject access request, and found the Respondent had not shown that the discrimination allegation played no part in the failure. All other Equality Act claims were dismissed.
The Claimant was also found to have been unfairly dismissed by reason of the failure to hear the appeal, with no contributory fault. The tribunal assessed there was a two-thirds chance that a fair-minded independent appeal panel, noting the Claimant was disabled and had 20 years' service, would have given him a further 3 months to return to work. An interim payment of £14,224 (a Basic Award of £13,824 plus £400 for loss of statutory rights) was ordered, with a Remedy Hearing listed for 27 March 2026 to address injury to feelings, any personal injury award, and any financial loss compensation for discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Upheld on the specific basis of s.15 Equality Act 2010 (discrimination arising from disability) for failing to hear the Claimant's appeal which alleged disability discrimination. The tribunal found the Respondent did not know and could not reasonably have known of the disability until 13 April 2023. All other Equality Act claims were dismissed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Upheld under s.26 Equality Act 2010 in relation to disability, on the basis that the failure to hear the appeal was reasonably regarded by the Claimant as creating an offensive environment. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Upheld under s.27 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal rejected the Respondent's evidence that the appeal got lost amongst other matters, and held the Respondent did not show the allegation of discrimination played no role in their failure to hear the appeal. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Upheld on the basis that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of the Respondent's failure to hear his appeal. No contributory fault was found. The tribunal assessed a 2/3 chance that a fair-minded appeal panel would have given the Claimant a further 3 months to return to work, taking into account his 20 years' service and disabled status. An interim payment of £14,224 (Basic Award of £13,824 plus £400 loss of statutory rights) was ordered, with remaining remedy to be determined at a Remedy Hearing on 27 March 2026. | Upheld | — | £14,224 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,224
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £13,824
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
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.