Mr W Ladyman v Maritime and Coastguard Agency — 2025

The claimant, a consultant surveyor employed by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, was dismissed on 12 May 2023 after sickness absence caused by a lower back condition. The tribunal found he was disabled at the material time: by September 2022 his back condition had more than a trivial impact on normal day-to-day activities, including sitting, driving and work activities, and by May 2023 it could well continue into August or September 2023 and beyond. The respondent could reasonably have been expected to know he was disabled because it had the occupational health material, the absence history and HR resources to assess the position.

The failure to make reasonable adjustments claim was dismissed. The pleaded PCP was the requirement to be fit and able to perform substantive duties, and the proposed adjustments were changes to hours or duties, working from home or another location, and consideration of alternative work. The tribunal found that at dismissal and appeal stage the claimant was not fit to return to work even with those adjustments, and that the real issue was whether the respondent should have allowed more time, which had not been pleaded as the reasonable adjustment.

The section 15 disability discrimination claim succeeded. The dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of the claimant's sickness absence, and that absence arose from his disability. The respondent's aims of ensuring regular and effective service and managing resources were legitimate, but dismissal was not justified. The tribunal found that waiting for the CT scan, updated consultant view and further occupational health advice was a less discriminatory way of pursuing those aims, especially where a phased return in August 2023 had been identified as feasible if the steroid injection route was followed, the claimant was on nil pay, there was no firm plan to replace him in Cardiff, and his role was ultimately moved rather than filled there.

The protected disclosure complaints were dismissed. The respondent did not dispute, for the purposes of the case, that the claimant had made protected disclosures, including the 9 December 2019 document to Jane Jackson. However, the tribunal accepted that the dismissing manager, Mr Balasubramanian, and the appeal manager, Mr Stone, did not know about the disclosures and were not influenced by them. It also rejected the case that HR or senior management had improperly influenced the dismissal decision because of the disclosures. The remaining protected disclosure detriment complaints, concerning the absence of a further meeting before dismissal and the failure to wait for the CT scan or seek further medical advice, were dismissed because the protected disclosures were not a material influence.

The ordinary unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal found that the respondent had shown a potentially fair capability reason connected with the claimant's absence, the anticipated length of absence, perceived pressures on the Cardiff Marine Office and HQ policy work, uncertainty about a return in August 2023, and concerns about duties and eligibilities. However, the respondent had not carried out a reasonable investigation into the sustainability of the HQ policy work, the plan for replacing the claimant, the wider resourcing position, or what a phased return and revalidation pathway might involve. It also failed to give the claimant the detailed rationale before dismissal or appeal, and the invitation to the 21 April 2023 meeting did not make sufficiently clear that dismissal was under consideration. The successful claims were listed for a remedy hearing, so no monetary award was recorded in this judgment.