Case 1806679/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Farnaby v Anchor Hanover Group — 2022
- Case reference
- 1806679/2021
- Decision date
- 13 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Perry Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Farnaby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a Care Assistant in a care home and was dismissed after he did not provide vaccination evidence or the respondent's self-certification medical exemption form before the statutory vaccination requirements for care homes took effect. The tribunal found that the respondent's reason for dismissal was its genuine belief, reinforced by HR advice, that continuing to employ him without that form after 11 November 2021 would be illegal.
The tribunal found that the respondent had established a potentially fair reason under section 98(2)(d) ERA, because allowing the claimant to enter the care home without evidence satisfying the respondent of vaccination or clinical exemption would have contravened the amended regulations. In the alternative, the tribunal found that any mistaken belief would have been a reasonable belief amounting to some other substantial reason under section 98(1)(b) ERA.
On reasonableness, the tribunal found that the respondent had explored alternative roles, followed changing government guidance, conducted consultation, dismissal and appeal meetings reasonably, and was entitled to treat the claimant's union certificate and earlier medical evidence as insufficient. It rejected allegations that the respondent's conduct was intimidating, bullying or coercive, and concluded that the dismissal and process were within the band of reasonable responses.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the claimant's sole claim was unfair dismissal and that the dismissal was fair. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2)(d) ERA 1996
- s.98(1)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- band of reasonable responses
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Bouchaala v Trust House Forte Hotels Ltd
- Nayak v Royal Mail Group
- Baker v Abellio London Ltd
- Ssekisonge v Barts Health NHS Trust
- Kelly v University of Southampton
- ACAS Code on Disciplinary and Grievances
- Taylor v OCS Group Ltd
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.