Case 2304190/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Neil Wilson v Aliaxis UK Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2304190/2023
- Decision date
- 30 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones KC
- Venue
- Ashford
- Panel members
- Mrs Judith Clelow, Mr William Dixon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Neil Wilson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously held that the unfair dismissal claim succeeded and that the discrimination arising from disability claim succeeded only as it related to the claimant's dismissal. The direct disability discrimination, reasonable adjustments, and harassment claims were dismissed.
For the successful claims, the Tribunal identified the core complaint as the respondent's failure to go back to Unum and indicate that, after obtaining further occupational health input, it was satisfied that the claimant was genuinely incapable of work. The Tribunal made Polkey/Chagger findings that there was a 20% chance a fair and non-discriminatory process would still have led to rejection of the insurance claim and a later lawful dismissal on incapacity grounds.
The Tribunal found that the claimant would have received 80% of 70% of pay until 19 September 2024, when entitlement under the Unum scheme would have ceased. It also concluded that no contributory fault reduction should be made, and that remedy would need to be dealt with at a further hearing if not agreed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim for unfair dismissal succeeds. Remedy was left for a further hearing or agreement, with Polkey/Chagger findings made. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claims failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The discrimination arising from disability claim succeeded in so far as it related to the claimant's dismissal. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The failure to make reasonable adjustments claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The harassment claim failed. The surveillance allegation was time-barred and would otherwise have been dismissed; the fit-note allegation failed on its facts. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- EqA 2010, s. 6
- EqA 2010, s. 13
- EqA 2010, s. 15
- EqA 2010, s. 20
- EqA 2010, s. 26
- ERA 1996, s. 94
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Kahn
- Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Homer
- Bank Mellat v Her Majesty's Treasury (No. 2)
- Polkey/Chagger
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.