Case 2308011/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Donnelly v DFDS (Guernsey) Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2308011/2023
- Decision date
- 26 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan
- Panel members
- Ms S Dengate, Mr R Singh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Donnelly
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Ashford (by video) before Employment Judge Corrigan with Ms S Dengate and Mr R Singh, found that DFDS (Guernsey) Limited contravened the Equality Act 2010 by failing to make reasonable adjustments for the claimant, Mr S Donnelly, who has osteoarthritis of the spine. The tribunal held there was a persisting failure from around April 2023 until March 2024 to facilitate the claimant's redeployment to a shore-side role, with vacancies in February and March 2024 not being acted upon, and inadequate communication with the claimant about his redeployment requests. The Occupational Health report of 1 November 2023 and its recommendations were not given proactive consideration.
The tribunal further found that the respondent's breaches amounted to a fundamental breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence, that the claimant resigned in response to those breaches, and that he was therefore constructively dismissed. The dismissal was held to be unfair. The failure to make reasonable adjustments was found to have contributed to the fundamental breach, making this a discriminatory dismissal.
The remaining disability claims (direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and disability-related harassment) were not upheld. On direct discrimination the tribunal did not find less favourable treatment because of disability; on s.15 it found the relevant conduct was not because of something arising in consequence of disability; and on harassment no unwanted conduct was established on the pleaded matters. Remedy was reserved to a separate remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
12 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 | Constructive unfair dismissal found. The tribunal held the respondent acted in fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence by failing to facilitate shore-side redeployment as a reasonable adjustment, which contributed to the claimant's resignation. Remedy to be determined at a separate remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Tribunal expressly found the respondent constructively dismissed the claimant; the dismissal was unfair. Remedy reserved to a separate hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal found. The tribunal held the respondent acted in fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence by failing to facilitate shore-side redeployment as a reasonable adjustment, which contributed to the claimant's resignation. Remedy to be determined at a separate remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Tribunal expressly found the respondent constructively dismissed the claimant; the dismissal was unfair. Remedy reserved to a separate hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 upheld. The tribunal found a persisting failure from approximately April 2023 to March 2024 to facilitate shore-side redeployment, treated as a continuing omission and therefore in time. |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] ICR 142
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- Equality Act 2010 s.39(7)(b)
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.