Case 1600612/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Hughes v Wilko Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1600612/2022
- Decision date
- 9 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Vernon
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Ms P Palmer, Ms K Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Hughes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed and that the respondent had wrongfully dismissed him and made unlawful deductions from wages by withholding Company Sick Pay. The claimant's complaints centred on a disciplinary process in September 2021 that led to a Final Written Warning in early October 2021, the subsequent withholding of CSP during sickness absence, and the handling of his appeal and grievance, in which decision-makers concluded that his absence had been taken in 'bad faith' or was 'premeditated'. The claimant relied on a 'final straw' in January 2022 when he learned the store at which he worked was to close.
All disability discrimination complaints failed. The s.15 claim, indirect discrimination claim and reasonable adjustments claim were dismissed because the tribunal was not persuaded the relevant disadvantage or unfavourable treatment arose from the claimant's disability. The harassment complaint was dismissed because the tribunal found the comments made about 'bad faith' and 'premeditated' conduct, although unwanted, were not 'related to' the claimant's disability within the meaning of s.26 Equality Act 2010 but rather reflected the decision-makers' (mistaken) belief that he was not genuinely ill. The discriminatory dismissal complaint fell away as a consequence.
No remedy figures were determined in this judgment. The respondent was in administration and the stay on proceedings under the Insolvency Act 1986 had been lifted only for the purpose of arriving at and issuing this liability judgment; the proceedings were re-stayed thereafter. The unpaid holiday pay complaint was withdrawn during oral submissions and dismissed upon withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
11 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal under ss.94 and 98 ERA 1996; the claim succeeded on the basis of breaches relating to entitlement to Company Sick Pay and/or the implied term of trust and confidence, with a 'final straw' event in January 2022. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal contrary to sections 94 and 98 ERA 1996 — well-founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Breach of contract (wrongful dismissal) — well-founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Pleaded as breach of contract (wrongful dismissal); succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deductions from wages contrary to s.13 ERA 1996 — well-founded and succeeded, relating to withheld Company Sick Pay. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability contrary to s.15 Equality Act 2010 — failed and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination |
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 19 Equality Act 2010
- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 39 Equality Act 2010
- Insolvency Act 1986
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.