Mr D R Hardman v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs — 2026

Mr Hardman remained employed by the Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs. The respondent conceded that he was disabled by reason of Long Covid and knew of that disability from 26 September 2023. The Tribunal unanimously dismissed all claims following a liability-only hearing.

The sexual-orientation harassment claim concerned an anonymous offensive email received on 14 February 2024 and the respondent's alleged failures before and after its receipt. After the email was reported, managers responded, referred it internally and encouraged Mr Hardman to report it to the police. The Tribunal found no post-receipt conduct of which he was aware that could reasonably have the effect required by s.26 Equality Act 2010. As to prevention, it found that the alleged deficiencies in tracing anonymous emails applied irrespective of protected characteristics, were not related to Mr Hardman's sexual orientation, and had not been shown to satisfy the tests for primary employer liability for third-party harassment under Nailard and Conteh.

The reasonable-adjustments claims concerned homeworking and a transfer to the North East. After Mr Hardman produced a Fit Note on 22 December 2023 stating that he was fit to work if working from home, he was not subsequently required to work in the Manchester office before his transfer. The Tribunal found that the office-attendance PCP therefore ceased to place him at the pleaded disadvantage or, alternatively, that the required adjustment had been made; its temporary rather than formally permanent character did not make it unreasonable in the circumstances.

Mr Hardman requested a transfer on 6 November 2023, was offered a Longbenton role on 19 January 2024 and transferred on 19 February 2024. The Tribunal considered it reasonable for the respondent to obtain an updated occupational-health report addressing relocation and found that the period of just under 11 weeks between request and offer was not unreasonable. Although the grievance decision had found the four-week delay in supplying notes of the 1 November 2023 meeting unreasonable, the Tribunal held that supplying those notes was not itself the proposed adjustment and that the overall process did not amount to a failure to make reasonable adjustments.

The s.15 claims also failed. The Tribunal found that the pleaded matters did not correctly distinguish the alleged treatment from the required 'something arising' from disability. In any event, the transfer request was not refused and the respondent did respond to the homeworking request, ultimately permitting Mr Hardman to work from home throughout the remainder of his time in Salford.

For victimisation, the Tribunal found that six emails from Kerry-Ann McKinley following the first grievance, and her communications about Mr Hardman's adjustment requests and managerial responsibilities, did not amount to detriments under the Shamoon test. It accepted that the warning of possible disciplinary action if he did not attend the proposed meeting was a detriment, but found that it was not because of either protected act: the wording had been suggested by the Expert Advice Service and was included for that reason. As all claims were dismissed at the liability stage, no monetary remedy was awarded or determined.