Case 2402393/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M Armstrong v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2025

Case reference: 2402393/2024
Decision date: 14 November 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Phil Allen
Venue: Manchester
Panel members: Mr B Rowen, Dr H Vahramian

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr M Armstrong

Respondent

The Secretary of State for Justice

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr Armstrong was an HM Prison Officer and the respondent accepted that he had PTSD, which was a disability at the relevant time. The case concerned attendance management, an expression of interest in an Externals role, and the dismissal decision taken on 11 December 2023. The tribunal found that the respondent's systems incorrectly recorded that the claimant had received a written warning and a final written warning, when the letters sent to him had not done so, and that the claimant was not given the documents relied on at the dismissal meeting.

The tribunal accepted that the occupational health evidence obtained in late 2023 pointed towards recovery rather than permanent incapacity. In particular, the final report said there was no indication of long-term permanent incapacity and expected improvement over time. The claimant had also told his manager on 4 December 2023 that he wanted to look at returning before his sick note expired. The tribunal found that the dismissal was based on the claimant's absence record and the mistaken belief that he was already at warning stages, and that the respondent could have waited longer.

The unfair dismissal claim therefore succeeded. The tribunal held that dismissal on 11 December 2023 was outside the range of reasonable responses in all the circumstances, although it also found there was a realistic possibility that a fair dismissal might have occurred later. For that reason it applied a 40% Polkey reduction when assessing compensation, but no monetary award was fixed in this judgment because remedy was left over for a later hearing.

The direct disability discrimination complaint was dismissed. The tribunal rejected the allegation about a final written warning because no such warning had been issued, found the Externals allocation decision was not influenced by disability, and concluded that the dismissal was not directly because of disability. By contrast, the tribunal upheld the claim for discrimination arising from disability in relation to the dismissal, and upheld the reasonable adjustments claim in relation to not dismissing the claimant on 11 December 2023. It did not uphold those claims in relation to the Externals allocation or the other proposed adjustments.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

This 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	Claim upheld. The tribunal found the respondent relied on an erroneous record that the claimant had received a written warning and final written warning, did not give him the documents considered at the dismissal meeting, and could have waited longer in light of the occupational health evidence and the claimant's stated intention to return before his fit note expired. Remedy was left to a later hearing, and the tribunal found a 40% Polkey reduction should apply.	Upheld	—	—
Disability discrimination	Direct disability discrimination claim dismissed. The allegation of a final written warning failed because no final written warning had been issued. The tribunal also found the decision not to appoint the claimant to Externals was not because of disability, and the dismissal was not directly because of disability; the actual comparators were not in materially the same circumstances.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Claim succeeded in relation to dismissal only. The tribunal held that dismissing the claimant on 11 December 2023 was unfavourable treatment because of absence arising in consequence of PTSD, but the Externals allocation decision was not because of the claimant's absence. The respondent identified legitimate aims, but the dismissal was not a proportionate means of achieving them.	Upheld	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Reasonable adjustments claim succeeded only in relation to not dismissing the claimant on 11 December 2023. The tribunal held it would have been reasonable to defer dismissal and hold a later FARM, but rejected the other proposed adjustments, including altering trigger points and allowing him to continue in Externals.

Legal tests applied

21 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.