Case 2205822/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Ms E Banton (counsel) For the v Respondent — 2022

Case reference: 2205822/2019
Decision date: 8 July 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Baty
Venue: London Central
Panel members: Mr D Kendall, Mr J Carroll

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Ms E Banton (counsel) For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant joined the respondent in 2009, was promoted in 2011 and 2013, and returned from a one-year leave of absence in December 2016. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that it operated a progression-based consulting model, that the claimant understood it, and that she received two consecutive "Not Progressing" talent outcomes in August 2018 and March 2019. It found longstanding performance concerns including low chargeability, weak client relationships, limited client stickiness, and lack of origination and sales activity, and held that these concerns, not sickness absence, drove the dismissal decision on 3 July 2019, effective 17 July 2019.

The tribunal rejected the claims of direct race discrimination, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and wrongful dismissal. It found no evidence that the decision-maker acted because of race or disability, that the comparators relied on were materially comparable, or that the dismissal was because of the alleged limitations said to arise from disability. It found that sciatica was a disability within section 6 EqA 2010, but that endometriosis and asthma were not proved to be disabilities on the evidence, and in any event the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the claimant was disabled for EqA purposes.

The wrongful dismissal claim failed because the 1 September 2013 contract applied and permitted payment of basic salary only in lieu of notice. The reasonable adjustments claim was struck out because it was out of time and no just and equitable extension was granted; the tribunal also said the TAL point relied on did not create the necessary substantial disadvantage and the proposed adjustments would not have addressed the real performance issues. The tribunal held that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim succeeded only because the process used did not fit the respondent's policy, particularly the panel composition and the mismatch between the policy and the performance dismissal process, but it found that the claimant would have been dismissed fairly in any event and reduced the compensatory award to zero under Polkey. It did not determine the basic award, and directed the parties to seek agreement on that figure.

Claims and outcomes

6 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Succeeded only on procedural fairness grounds. The tribunal accepted the respondent's performance concerns but held that the dismissal process did not fit the respondent's own disciplinary/performance policy, including the panel composition and the way the process was presented. The compensatory award was reduced to zero under Polkey.	Upheld	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	Dismissed because the 2013 contract applied at termination and allowed payment of basic salary only in lieu of notice. The tribunal found the claimant received and electronically accepted that contract.	Dismissed	—	—
Disability discrimination	Direct disability discrimination failed. The tribunal found no evidential basis that the dismissal was because of disability and held Comparator A was not an appropriate comparator. It also found the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the claimant was disabled for EqA purposes.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Discrimination arising from disability under section 15 EqA 2010 failed. The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed for performance reasons, not because of the alleged limitations said to arise from disability, and in any event the respondent had legitimate aims and the dismissal was proportionate.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Other	Failure to make reasonable adjustments was presented outside the tribunal time limit, the tribunal declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis, and the claim was therefore struck out. The tribunal also said the pleaded TAL adjustment point would not in any event have succeeded.

Legal tests applied

18 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.