Mrs S Mansfield v Adrian Bressington t/a AB Family Law — 2020

Mrs S Mansfield was employed by Adrian Bressington t/a AB Family Law from 23 October 2017 to 23 August 2018. The tribunal accepted that she was disabled by reason of dyslexia, but found that the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, of the disability at the relevant time. The claimant said she had told Mr Bressington in December 2017, but the tribunal preferred his evidence that she did not, and found that the first clear mention was in her appeal letter of 19 August 2018. The tribunal also noted that there was no medical evidence before it linking the errors in question to dyslexia.

On the section 15 and reasonable adjustments case, the tribunal found that the dismissal was not because of something arising in consequence of disability. It found that the reasons for dismissal were the performance concerns it set out in the reasons, including spelling, grammar, punctuation and other work issues, with the second MIAM certificate issue as the tipping point. The pleaded PCP, described as the requirement to fulfil the ordinary duties of a legal secretary, was held not to show a substantial disadvantage on the case pleaded, and the tribunal said it was not for it to construct a different case for a legally represented claimant. The proposed adjustments were also rejected on the facts found: the firm was a small one-person practice, there was no scope for reallocating responsibilities, existing software already had a read-out facility, Big Hand and Grammarly had been used or accessed, and the suggested further software would not have assisted.

The money claims also failed. The notice pay claim failed because the tribunal found there was no agreement to move from one week's notice to a longer period, and the claimant's own letter of 5 February 2018 said that a week's notice was due. The claim for the difference between probationary and confirmed salary failed because the probationary period was never completed or confirmed. The overtime/back pay claim failed because there was no contractual entitlement to overtime and no evidence of a custom or practice creating one. The holiday pay issue was resolved by agreement: the tribunal recorded agreement in principle for 2.5 days' holiday pay at £151.83 net and said the claim would stand dismissed without further order in 28 days time.

After the liability decision, the tribunal heard a costs application and found that the case had been brought and continued unreasonably, especially after a without prejudice offer of £10,000 had been made on 3 March 2020. It ordered the claimant to pay £7,700, being Mr Leach's net fees, as a contribution to the respondent's counsel's fees.