Case 2415517/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Bentham v Timpson Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415517/2020
- Decision date
- 29 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson
- Panel members
- Mr D Lancaster, Ms A Ashworth
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Bentham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr D Bentham, had worked for Timpson Limited since 1988 and the tribunal accepted that he had ulcerative colitis and was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010, with the respondent also accepting knowledge of disability. He had been continuously absent from 15 July 2019 and was planning a return to work in April 2020, but the COVID-19 pandemic intervened. The tribunal found that the respondent closed its branches during the national lockdown, suffered serious financial losses, and embarked on a countrywide redundancy exercise. At Chorlton, the tribunal found that Rory Johnson was the branch manager and the claimant was working as an assistant manager in a pool of one. It held that there were four consultation meetings, that alternative employment was considered, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses, so the unfair dismissal claim failed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Redundancy dismissal on 13 July 2020 after the COVID-19 branch closures and consultation process; the tribunal found a genuine redundancy and a fair selection and consultation exercise. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 claim based on dismissal and denial of a lunch break; the tribunal found the dismissal was for redundancy and that the claimant was not denied breaks in the way alleged. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Sections 20-21 reasonable adjustments claim; the tribunal found no PCP requiring the shop to remain open during operating hours because a closed sign could be used when lone working. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 13 direct disability discrimination claim; Rory Johnson was not a suitable comparator and a hypothetical non-disabled assistant manager would also have been dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Three allegations under section 26: the December 2017 £900 salary issue, the covert camera in April/May 2019, and the January 2019 letter of concern; none was found to amount to disability-related harassment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- British Aerospace PLC v Green
- Nicholls v Rockwell Automation Limited
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International PLC
- Efobi v Royal Mail Group Limited
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Basildon and Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust v Weerasinghe
- Pnaiser v NHS England
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.