Case 2603050/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2603050/2021
- Decision date
- 23 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre
- Panel members
- Mr G Edmonson, Mr C Goldson
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for the respondent as Website Content Manager from 4 September 2017 until his resignation on 19 December 2021. The tribunal found that he was disabled at the relevant time by reason of cluster headaches and depression. The complaints before the tribunal were constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, including discrimination arising from disability and a failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the claimant for a reason related to disability by issuing him with a final written warning on 11 August 2021. It accepted that the respondent had legitimate aims linked to attendance and performance, but held that the warning was disproportionate. The tribunal rejected the remaining part of the section 15 complaint and dismissed the reasonable adjustments complaint.
On dismissal, the tribunal held that the final written warning and related handling breached the implied term of trust and confidence, that the claimant resigned in response to that breach, and that he had not affirmed the contract. It concluded that he was constructively dismissed and that the dismissal was unfair. The respondent relied on capability as a potentially fair reason, but the tribunal still found the dismissal unfair for the same reasons as the breach of trust and confidence.
On remedy, the parties agreed a basic award of £3,199.26 and an award of £500 for loss of statutory rights. The tribunal made no award for loss of earnings because it found the claimant's financial loss was attributable to ill health rather than the dismissal. It applied a 75% Polkey reduction to the dismissal compensatory award, resulting in a compensatory award of £125, and made no reduction for contributory conduct.
For discrimination, the tribunal assessed injury to feelings at £8,000, describing that figure as being at the upper end of the lower Vento band. It declined to reduce that award for future contingencies, and ordered interest of £946.85. The total award was £12,271.11.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The section 15 claim succeeded only in relation to the final written warning issued on 11 August 2021. The tribunal dismissed the remainder of the discrimination arising from disability complaint. | Upheld | Disability | £8,947 |
| Disability discrimination | The reasonable adjustments complaint failed. The tribunal accepted that the respondent used a screen or monitor PCP, but was not satisfied that the proposed adjustments were shown to have removed the disadvantage on the evidence before it. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The claimant was found to have been constructively and unfairly dismissed after resigning in response to the 11 August 2021 breach of trust and confidence. A 75% Polkey reduction was applied to the compensatory award, and no contributory conduct reduction was made. | Upheld | — | £3,324 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,271
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,199
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £125
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 123 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Royal Bank of Scotland v Ashton [2011] ICR EAT
- O'Donoghue v Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council [2001] IRLR 615 CA
- Vento lower band
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.