AB v R1 and R2 — 2025

The claimant, formerly employed by the first respondent from January 2013 until his summary dismissal on 14 September 2022, brought five complaints arising out of a restructure in which he was offered an alternative role (same job title, different focus, with a £5,000 pay rise) on a trial or probationary basis. He raised internal complaints, which the first respondent investigated, and he subsequently asserted that certain of those communications amounted to protected disclosures under the ERA 1996. The respondents' position was that the claimant would not accept the outcomes of the investigations and had made unjustified allegations against his line managers, such that his continued employment was untenable and he was dismissed on notice on grounds of conduct and/or some other substantial reason.

The Tribunal, sitting with members, gave a unanimous Reserved Judgment dismissing all five complaints. The complaints of protected disclosure detriment (s.47B(1) ERA), automatic unfair dismissal (s.103A ERA), ordinary unfair dismissal (s.98 ERA), direct disability discrimination (s.13 EQA 2010) and discrimination arising in consequence of disability (s.15 EQA 2010) were each found not well-founded. Disability status under s.6 EQA, together with knowledge and constructive knowledge, were in issue.

The text supplied is truncated and the Tribunal's substantive reasoning on each claim is not reproduced in the extract. No remedy was awarded, the claims having been dismissed; the claimant's schedule of loss had sought compensation in excess of £16.5m. The included extract from the Reasons concerns case-management issues around the conduct of cross-examination and medical evidence rather than the substantive merits.