Case 2401957/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Junia Al Kinany v Sams Helping Hands Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2401957/2024
- Decision date
- 3 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Humble
- Panel members
- Ms Fulton, Ms Hillon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Junia Al Kinany
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningJunia Al Kinany worked for Sams Helping Hands Limited as a domiciliary care assistant from 27 April 2023. After she slipped and broke her wrist on 1 December 2023, she told the care manager on 2 and 4 December that she had hurt her arm and that the wrist was broken. On 6 December 2023 she said the doctor had told her recovery might take up to six weeks, and the respondent then told her the contract would end if she was unavailable; an email on 7 December 2023 confirmed termination under the contractual provision dealing with three weeks' unavailability.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had a physical impairment, but held that she had not shown it was long-term at the material time, 6 December 2023. The contemporaneous evidence pointed to a short-term injury, and later medical evidence could not be used with hindsight to prove disability. The tribunal also found the respondent did not know, actually or constructively, that the impairment was likely to have a long-term effect. The section 15 discrimination arising from disability claim and the reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 were therefore dismissed.
The victimisation claim failed because the protected act relied on was the ACAS notification on 13 February 2024, but the tribunal found that this related to holiday pay only, totalling £973, and did not amount to a complaint of discrimination. On that basis there was no protected act for section 27 purposes, so the alleged detriments involving Exemplar Healthcare and Furbank House could not succeed. Before the hearing the claimant had already received outstanding statutory sick pay and one week's notice pay, so the breach of contract claim and the statutory sick pay element were withdrawn; the remaining deduction claim about travel time failed because the contract did not require separate payment for travel time, and the tribunal refused a late National Minimum Wage amendment under Selkent Bus v Moore after considering Whittlestone BJP Home Support Limited.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 discrimination arising from disability claim. The claimant’s broken wrist was accepted, but the tribunal held she had not shown that the impairment was long-term at 6 December 2023; the contemporaneous evidence pointed to recovery within about six weeks, and the respondent did not have actual or constructive knowledge of a disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20 and 21. The PCP identified by the tribunal was a requirement to attend, or be able to attend, for work in the next three weeks. The tribunal held the claimant was not disabled at the material time and the duty to make reasonable adjustments was not made out. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The protected act relied on was the ACAS notification of 13 February 2024. The tribunal found that communication related to holiday pay only, totalling £973, and did not amount to a complaint of discrimination, so there was no protected act for section 27 purposes. The alleged reference issues involving Exemplar Healthcare and Furbank House did not alter that conclusion. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant had already received outstanding statutory sick pay before the hearing, so that part of the claim was withdrawn. The remaining complaint about unpaid travel time failed because the contract did not require separate payment for travel time, and the tribunal refused a late attempt to advance a National Minimum Wage argument as a new cause of action under Selkent. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Guidance on the Definition of Disability (2011) section C4
- Kapadia v London Borough of Lambeth [2000] IRLR 699
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- Whittlestone BJP Home Support Limited [2014] IRLR 176
- Selkent Bus v Moore [1996] IRLR 661
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.