Case 1600913/2024 · Employment Tribunal
IN PERSON FOR THE v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 1600913/2024
- Decision date
- 7 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Ms A Burge, Ms J Keene
Parties
1 namedClaimant
IN PERSON FOR THE
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by HM Land Registry as an Assistant Land Registrar and was dismissed for gross misconduct on 17 November 2023. He brought complaints of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and disability discrimination, including reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from disability. The tribunal found that the complaints were presented in time and that it had jurisdiction to determine them.
The tribunal dismissed all complaints on their merits. On discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal found that the disciplinary process and dismissal were not because of the claimant's emotional lability, and that the conduct relied on by the respondent consisted of considered, calculated and methodical decisions and actions rather than immediate or impulsive reactions. It also recorded, in the alternative, that any unfavourable treatment would have been objectively justified by the respondent's legitimate aims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not made out and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes this as breach of contract (wrongful dismissal) and states that it was not made out and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments was not made out and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of discrimination arising from disability was not made out and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Post Office v Foley
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets v Hitt
- band of reasonable responses
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- objective justification
- proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims
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.