Represented himself For the v Respondent — 2023

At the outset, notice pay and holiday pay were recorded as having been paid and were dismissed on withdrawal. The tribunal then dealt with a proposed automatic unfair dismissal claim for whistleblowing. It found that the ET1 did not contain such a claim, that earlier directions did not amount to acceptance of one, and that a very late amendment at the start of the hearing should be refused under Selkent because the case had not been properly particularised and the respondent would have had to meet a new cause of action without fair notice.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found the respondent's reason for dismissal was a fundamental and irreparable breakdown in trust and confidence, together with the need to protect the company's business and client relationships. It accepted that the claimant had for years refused to accept grievance outcomes, challenged managers and HR repeatedly, sent numerous accusatory emails, ignored instructions not to copy in senior people or contact clients, and continued to threaten to do so. Applying s.98 ERA 1996 and the band of reasonable responses, and taking account of Polkey, the tribunal held that dismissal without a prior meeting was reasonable because consultation would have been futile.

On disability, the tribunal found that the claimant had anxiety/depressive disorder and impaired kidney function, both of which were disabilities under the Equality Act 2010. It accepted the medical records, fit notes, occupational health evidence and oral evidence showing long-term sickness absence from May 2018, medication and counselling, and worsening kidney disease with fatigue. The tribunal also held that the respondent knew or ought to have known of the disabilities by the time of dismissal in January 2022.

The direct disability discrimination claim failed because there was no evidence that the dismissal was because of disability. The tribunal found that a non-disabled employee behaving in the same way would have been dismissed. The section 15 claim also failed. Although the sickness absence was caused by disability, the claimant was dismissed for the breakdown in trust and confidence and the risk to the business, not because of absence. The tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant's voluminous correspondence arose in consequence of disability, and in any event held that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims, including protecting client relationships and preventing harassment of staff and clients.