Case 2204900/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr S Sanders, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2019

Case reference: 2204900/2020
Decision date: 2 August 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Lewis Representation
Venue: London Central

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr S Sanders, Counsel For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal found that Mr O’Carroll, a fixed-share equity partner and head of the London office, had anxiety and depression and treated the events from August 2019 to his expulsion as a continuing course of conduct ending on 31 March 2020. The respondents accepted by the end of the hearing that he had a disability and that they knew or ought to have known of it. The case was heard as a liability-only judgment, with remedy left to a later hearing.

On direct disability discrimination, the tribunal upheld the claim in relation to expelling the claimant from the partnership, not informing him that expulsion was being contemplated, and not giving him an opportunity to make representations. It found that the respondents acted on assumptions about his condition and likely return, relied on a limited and stale evidential basis, and deliberately withheld their intentions from him. It rejected the respondents’ account that they were acting fairly or simply following a commercial process.

The tribunal did not uphold the direct discrimination allegations about failing to engage with the claimant on a possible return to work or failing to offer support. It held that the word "support" was too vague to identify a distinct treatment, and the evidence showed a broader failure to consult or seek a medical prognosis rather than a separate support measure.

On discrimination arising from disability under section 15, the tribunal upheld the claim in relation to the expulsion itself and the failure to engage with the claimant about prognosis and what might facilitate a return to work. It found that the respondents’ stated commercial and restructuring reasons were not their genuine reasons at the time, and that even if they had been, expulsion and non-engagement were not proportionate. It also rejected the alternative case that the claimant would have been expelled for breach of trust, finding no real chance that would have happened.

The tribunal did not uphold the section 15 allegations about not telling the claimant that expulsion was being contemplated or not allowing representations, because it treated those matters as direct discrimination instead. It also did not uphold the section 15 allegation about failure to offer support. The claim for reasonable adjustments had been withdrawn. No monetary award was determined in this judgment, and remedy was listed for October 2021.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Direct disability discrimination. The tribunal upheld the complaints that the respondents expelled the claimant from the partnership, did not tell him that expulsion was being contemplated, and did not give him an opportunity to make representations. It did not uphold the direct discrimination allegation about failing to engage with him on a possible return to work or the allegation of failing to offer support.	Upheld	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Discrimination arising from disability. The tribunal upheld the complaints that the claimant was expelled because of absence and continued poor health, and that the respondents failed to engage with him about prognosis and possible return-to-work measures. It did not uphold the section 15 allegations about non-disclosure, representations, or failure to offer support.	Upheld	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	The reasonable adjustments claim was withdrawn at the start of closing submissions.	Withdrawn	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

15 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.