Mr D Bell v David Corry t/a Direct Mortgages — 2020

Mr Bell was employed by David Corry t/a Direct Mortgages from 2012 until his resignation on 19 November 2018. The tribunal found he had bipolar 2 disorder with anxiety and that Mr Corry knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, of his disability from at least 2016/17. It accepted that the respondent had often accommodated him, but found the relationship deteriorated in 2018 when Mr Corry suspected Mr Bell was planning to leave and compete.

On the disability discrimination claims, the tribunal dismissed the section 15 and section 19 claims. It found the immediate reason for the suspension and related treatment was Mr Corry's suspicion that Mr Bell was setting up in business on his own account, not something arising in consequence of disability. It also found that the indirect discrimination PCPs identified around suspension were justified as proportionate measures to protect the business. The reasonable adjustments claim succeeded only in part: the tribunal held that, given the circumstances and Mr Bell's disability, it was a failure to make reasonable adjustments not to provide written confirmation of the reasons for suspension, the likely timeline, and the next steps. It rejected the remaining suggested adjustments, including prior warning, accompaniment, and extra time.

The tribunal held that the way the suspension meeting was conducted, including the lack of a clear explanation and the threat that Mr Bell would not work in financial services again, breached the implied term of trust and confidence. Mr Bell resigned four days later and the tribunal found that breach was an effective cause of his resignation, so he had been constructively dismissed. It also found the dismissal unfair for the purposes of s.98(4) ERA 1996 because the respondent had not established misconduct and the later allegations were not enough to justify the treatment at the time.

The wrongful dismissal claim succeeded in part because Mr Bell was entitled to notice pay after a repudiatory breach, but the tribunal found he had already been paid for 19-30 November 2018, which partially extinguished that claim. The unpaid holiday pay claim was dismissed, and the respondent's counterclaim failed. No final monetary award was fixed in the reserved judgment: the tribunal set aside remedy for a later hearing, recorded that the basic award would be unaffected, and said any compensatory award for unfair dismissal would be reduced by 50% after three months and 90% after six months, with no reduction for contributory conduct.