Mr U Iwelu v Hmr Group Holdings Limited — 2022

The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed the claimant for capability, namely performance. It accepted that the respondent had extensive evidence supporting its belief that the claimant was not performing satisfactorily at Senior Officer level, had given warnings and opportunities to improve, and had offered an alternative sanction of downgrading to Higher Officer before dismissal.

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded on procedural grounds. The tribunal held that the claimant should have had an opportunity to meet the decision maker, Mark Brewin, before the dismissal decision was taken, and that the appeal did not cure that defect. However, it found that a fair procedure would have made no difference to the outcome and reduced the compensatory award by 100%.

The tribunal dismissed the race discrimination and victimisation complaints relating to dismissal. Although it accepted that Paul Pinnington's earlier handling of the claimant's discrimination complaints could shift the burden of proof, it found the respondent had shown that dismissal was because of its belief about the claimant's performance and not because of race or any protected act.

The remaining discrimination, harassment and victimisation complaints pre-dated dismissal and were out of time. The tribunal refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis, noting the length of delay, the absence of sufficient reasons for delay, and that the claimant had not acted promptly. It added that, if those claims had been considered on the merits, they would not have succeeded.