Mr J. Blackwood v Qualiteach Ltd — 2025

The tribunal had already found that Qualiteach Ltd committed two acts of disability discrimination: it failed to make reasonable adjustments to the Claimant’s sales targets between the 6 and 15 December 2022 review meetings, and it harassed him on 15 December 2022. On remedy, it limited compensation to the impact of those unlawful acts, and did not treat earlier complaints or later events as part of the compensable loss unless they were shown to have been caused by the discrimination.

Applying tortious compensation principles and the Vento guidance, the tribunal found that the target issue caused the Claimant significant worry, while the 15 December 2022 meeting caused humiliation and a short-term crisis in his mental health. It accepted that he was signed off with stress and later mixed anxiety and depressive disorder, but also found that his condition improved by February 2023 and that by early May 2023 he had resumed giving driving lessons. It held that a lower-band award would be inadequate and that an upper-band award was not justified, and fixed injury to feelings at £20,000 in the middle of the middle Vento band.

The tribunal awarded £3,397.26 interest on the injury-to-feelings sum, calculated at 8% from 15 December 2022 to 28 January 2025. It said that this element related to pre-termination discrimination and was tax-free. It rejected aggravated damages, holding that even if there had been delay in the grievance process, it was not unreasonable and did not meet the threshold of high-handed, malicious, insulting or oppressive conduct.

For loss of earnings, the tribunal accepted a gross monthly salary of £1,896 and calculated a gross loss sum of £9,042.05 for the period from December 2022 to the end of October 2023, after crediting salary received from the Respondent, statutory sick pay, earnings from driving-instructor work, and universal credit. It rejected the Respondent’s submission that the claim should be reduced to nil because the Claimant would have been dismissed anyway, but it found a 30% chance that the employment would have ended in any event after the probation period because of longer-term contingencies, and applied that reduction to the post-probation period only.

The tribunal did not accept that the Claimant’s August 2023 overdose and hospital admission were caused or materially contributed to by the December 2022 discrimination, noting the absence of sufficient medical evidence and the presence of other triggers. It also refused a preparation time order, holding that the late exchange of witness statements and the disputed disclosure points did not justify the additional preparation time alleged, and that one of the disclosure issues had in fact assisted the Claimant’s discrimination case. The parties were directed to agree the net equivalent of the loss-of-earnings sum, the interest on it, and the grossed-up amount, after which a supplementary judgment would be issued.