Mr S. Grewal v Astha Limited and 1 other — 2019

The tribunal found that Mr Grewal had a long-term kidney condition amounting to a disability, that the respondents knew of it, and that he carried out much of his Leeds registered-manager work from home because of the limits imposed by the condition. It also found that the relationship between him and Ms Chakraborty had become very difficult and that their dispute was as much financial as employment-related.

On protected disclosures, the tribunal held that only the January and September 2015 disclosures about unpaid holiday pay were qualifying disclosures made in the public interest. The alleged disclosures about company money used for Ms Chakraborty's aunt's care and about unlawful care-worker arrangements were not established as verbal disclosures, and the written disclosures connected with the aunt's care were found to be part of the parties' private financial reckoning rather than public interest reporting. The s.47B detriment claim therefore failed because the bank-account restrictions, dividend decisions, suspension, investigation and dismissal were found to have been driven by other reasons, not by the holiday-pay disclosures.

The s.103A automatic unfair dismissal claim also failed. The tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was Ms Chakraborty's wish to end the business association and put pressure on Mr Grewal to sell his shares, rather than any protected disclosure. It also found that the dismissal process was procedurally unfair: Ms Chakraborty was involved throughout despite her conflict, the investigation and disciplinary meetings were inadequate, the claimant was not given a fair opportunity to answer the allegations, the promised transcript was not provided in time, and the appeal was not entertained.

The ordinary unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the respondent had not shown a potentially fair reason under s.98(2) ERA. The s.15 EqA claim succeeded because the dismissal was in part because Mr Grewal could not attend the Leeds office and perform the registered-manager role to the extent required, which arose in consequence of his disability and was known to the respondents; the tribunal rejected justification because the CQC-related aim had already been achieved when he stepped down from the role. The unparticularised unpaid wages and holiday pay claims were not pursued and were dismissed. Remedy, Polkey and contribution were left to a separate hearing, so no compensation figure was determined in this judgment.