Case 2304966/2019 · Employment Tribunal
MR CATHAL McDONNELL v A M Surveying and Property Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2304966/2019
- Decision date
- 1 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson
- Panel members
- Ms Yvonne Batchelor, Ms Janet Jerram
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MR CATHAL McDONNELL
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant started work on 2 January 2018 and was dismissed with notice pay in lieu on 10 July 2019. The tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal claim had been withdrawn at the preliminary hearing because he did not have two years' qualifying service, and it noted that any such dismissal would have been procedurally unfair if the claim had been available.
The main remaining claim was direct discrimination by reason of religion or belief. The claimant said he was dismissed so that he could be replaced by Beth Lawrence, a Jehovah's Witness, and relied on the fact that the respondent's managing director and some family members were Jehovah's Witnesses. Applying s.13 Equality Act 2010 and the burden of proof approach in Igen Limited v Wong, the tribunal found that the claimant had not raised the Jehovah's Witness point at the 4 July 2019 meeting, in his 10 July grievance, or in his appeal, and that his explanation about stress did not account for that omission.
The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that dismissal followed documented performance concerns, including appraisals, complaints, and loss of contracts, and that Matthew Mackintosh had lost trust and confidence in the claimant's performance. It found that Beth Lawrence had been recruited into a junior property management assistant role, which the claimant accepted was junior to his own role, and that later recruitment and promotion decisions, including the promotion of Zach and the hiring and promotion of Abi, did not support the replacement theory. The discrimination claim was dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed victimisation. It found there had been no protected act before the ET1 and no later act capable of amounting to victimisation, and it therefore treated that claim as not made out. By consent, the tribunal awarded outstanding holiday pay of £172.55.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Withdrawn at the preliminary hearing after the tribunal found the claimant did not have two years' qualifying service; the judgment also records the claim as dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct discrimination claim under s.13 Equality Act 2010 alleging dismissal because the claimant was not a Jehovah's Witness. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Victimisation | Although not identified as a head of claim initially, the tribunal considered it and dismissed it because there was no protected act before the ET1 and no later acts amounting to victimisation. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Succeeding by consent in the sum of £172.55 as outstanding holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £173 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £173
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- Igen Limited v Wong
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- Working Time Regulations
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.