Case 2200225/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A M Said v The Department of Health and Social Care — 2025
- Case reference
- 2200225/2024
- Decision date
- 14 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Forde REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A M Said
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed on grounds of capability following the respondent's performance management process. It accepted that the respondent had evidence of ineffective performance and had good cause to commence and continue that process.
The tribunal found that the respondent set clear objectives, supported the claimant, took account of his health at relevant times, made adjustments in the process, and followed a fair and reasonable procedure. It rejected allegations that the process was continued because of grievances, that the claimant had been set up to fail, that redeployment should have been available, or that bias had been shown.
The tribunal concluded that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses and that the unfair dismissal complaint was not well-founded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records earlier pleaded disability discrimination complaints, but states that after a case management hearing the only claim to be considered was unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 95(1) ERA 1996
- section 98(1) and (2) ERA 1996
- section 98(4) ERA 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Alidair Ltd v Taylor
- Shook v Ealing London Borough Council
- Cook v Thomas Linnell and Sons Ltd
- Fletcher v St Leonard's School
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.