Mr A Semakula v Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust — 2025

The tribunal rejected the respondent's Henderson v Henderson strike-out application and held that there was no issue estoppel or abuse of process. It found the later ET1s arose during ongoing employment and from a developing timeline of events, so the claims could proceed. On disability, it found the claimant was disabled with depression from 6 May 2022 and accepted that the respondent had long Covid knowledge from October 2021, with knowledge of depression arising later in 2022.

The claim about the 7 July 2022 telephone call failed. The tribunal found that when Mr Harries made the call he did not know the claimant was on long-term sick leave or the extent of the effect of his long Covid, and there was no basis to conclude that the call or the alleged background comments were because of disability or because of something arising in consequence of disability. It accepted that the claimant genuinely perceived the call as offensive, but it found that this did not establish unlawful treatment.

On the later disability claims, the tribunal accepted that Mr Cully and the respondent knew of long Covid and long-term sickness absence, but it did not find that the challenged management steps in September 2022 and early 2023 were because of disability. It found that Mr Cully was making reasonable efforts to engage with the claimant, that the failure to offer disability leave was not discriminatory and in any event the claimant was not entitled to it under the policy, and that the failure to share occupational health referrals in advance was explained as usual practice or an oversight rather than disability-related treatment.

The tribunal also rejected the victimisation claims. It held that the 15 February 2023 grievance and the 12 May 2023 complaint were protected acts, but that the delays in the grievance process, the errors in the investigation, and the alleged sham investigation were not shown to have been because of those protected acts. It found that most of the delay was explained by leave, workload, the junior doctor strikes, the claimant's representative's availability, and a bereavement, and that the investigation was carried out in good faith despite mistakes. The constructive dismissal claim also failed: the tribunal found only a minor unexplained delay in the grievance outcome, which was not a repudiatory breach or a cumulative breach of trust and confidence, and it found that the claimant resigned rather than being dismissed on 25 October 2023.