Case 1601559/2021 · Employment Tribunal
T Binesmael v Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601559/2021
- Decision date
- 19 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Harfield
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Mr P Bradney, Mrs L Bishop
Parties
2 namedClaimant
T Binesmael
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, an Associate Specialist Cardio-Thoracic surgeon, admitted accessing medical records of his ex-wife, children, friends and himself. The respondent investigated under the Upholding Professional Standards in Wales procedure. The tribunal found that the claimant was disabled by OCD/OCPD from October 2018, and by OCD/OCPD, anxiety and depression from October 2019, but did not find that his accessing of medical records was established as something arising in consequence of disability.
The tribunal found that the respondent had acted with reasonable and proper cause in treating the admitted accessing of medical records as a serious conduct matter and in using the Extended UPSW procedure. It found the respondent had generally supported the claimant, although there had been an earlier delay in referring him to occupational health. The tribunal did not find that delay amounted to a repudiatory breach or that it caused the claimant's resignation.
The tribunal found the claimant had not been dismissed. It held that he initiated and pursued ill health retirement, remained clear that he wished to leave, and resigned for that purpose. His complaints of ordinary unfair dismissal, constructive unfair dismissal, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments and harassment related to disability were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed by the respondent; he resigned to take ill health retirement. The ordinary unfair dismissal complaint therefore failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant had resigned, but not in response to a fundamental breach of contract. The constructive unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination was alleged on the basis of dismissal. The tribunal found there was no dismissal, whether actual or constructive. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaints of discrimination arising from disability were dismissed. The tribunal did not find the alleged unfavourable treatment was because of something arising in consequence of disability, and in any event found several matters justified. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The failure to make reasonable adjustments complaints were dismissed. The tribunal accepted some PCPs but found no failure to make reasonable adjustments on the pleaded case. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The harassment complaint concerned findings made by the Inquiry Panel about the claimant's explanations and OCPD. The tribunal found the conduct was unwanted but not related to disability and did not have the statutory purpose or effect. |
Legal tests applied
22 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.95 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Excavating v Sharp
- implied term of trust and confidence
- Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Grant v HM Land Registry
- s.123 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.