Mrs F Ukwuomah v THG Nutrition Limited — 2025

The hearing was on liability only. Mrs Ukwuomah, who was 59 at the date of dismissal and accepted to be disabled by a spinal condition, had worked for THG Nutrition Ltd since 2014. The tribunal held that the disability-related allegations based on acts in 2020 and 2022 were out of time, that they did not amount to a continuing act ending with the 2023 redundancy process, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.

The tribunal found that the respondent's 2023 restructure was genuine and not a sham. It accepted that the goods-in administrator work had diminished so that only one role was required, but held that the unfair dismissal claim succeeded because consultation was inadequate, the claimant was not properly consulted on the selection criteria or on avoiding redundancy, and the selection process had no transparent scoring or moderation. The appeal did not cure those defects. The tribunal found there was a 33% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed anyway and said any pecuniary compensation should be reduced by 33%.

Direct age discrimination succeeded. The tribunal found facts from which age discrimination could be inferred in the opaque redundancy selection, the contradictory explanations for choosing Mr Ng over the claimant, and the age gap between them. It held that the respondent had not discharged the burden of proving that age played no material part in the decision to select the claimant for redundancy and the resulting dismissal. By contrast, the direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, reasonable-adjustments, harassment and victimisation claims were dismissed: the relevant decision-makers did not know of the claimant's disability or earlier grievances, the dismissal was not because of disability or something arising from it, and the tribunal was not satisfied that time should be extended for the earlier disability-related allegations.