Case 3200735/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Dermot Kiely v Malden Marine Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3200735/2020
- Decision date
- 4 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms V Nikolaidou, Mr S Woodhouse
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Dermot Kiely
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Dermot Kiely had been employed by Malden Marine Ltd as a metal fabricator from July 2015 and that the respondent decided in September 2019 to make redundancies because of low trading and a reduced order book. It accepted that he had back-related conditions including osteopenia, scoliosis and osteoporosis, but concluded that the evidence did not establish that those conditions, alone or together, had a substantial adverse effect on his day-to-day activities at the material time. It also found that he had not told the respondent about the diagnoses or the medication details, and that the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that he was disabled for Equality Act purposes.
For that reason, the disability discrimination complaint was dismissed, and the tribunal said the discrimination arising from disability allegations in the list of issues were no longer applicable. On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal accepted that there was a genuine redundancy situation and that the respondent’s selection criteria were appropriate to its need to retain more versatile employees. It found that the claimant had been a slow worker since he started, that he and another employee, AT, scored lowest on the matrix, and that it was not unreasonable to retain AT instead of the claimant.
The dismissal was nevertheless unfair because the respondent did not provide an appeal hearing and did not properly consider the claimant’s appeal. The tribunal found that the claimant’s letter of 28 October 2019 was in substance an appeal, including a complaint that his back condition had not been considered, and that Malcolm Fawkes treated it only as a complaint about the process rather than as an appeal. On remedy, the tribunal held that an appeal would probably have taken no more than two further weeks and that there was a 99% likelihood the redundancy dismissal would have been confirmed. It awarded £830 for two weeks' net wages and £350 for loss of statutory rights, making a total award of £1,180.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found that the claimant had not proved he was a disabled person at the material time and had not proved that the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known of a disability. It held that the allegations under the list of issues relating to discrimination arising from disability were no longer applicable once that finding was made. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found there was a genuine redundancy situation and that the selection/scoring process was broadly fair, but held the dismissal unfair because the respondent failed to give the claimant an appeal hearing and failed to consider his appeal properly, including his complaint about disability. | Upheld | — | £1,180 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,180
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,180
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
16 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd
- SCA Packaging v Boyle
- Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust v Norris
- Schedule 8 Equality Act 2010, para 20
- Gallop v Newport City Council
- Jennings v Barts and The London NHS Trust
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassay v Nomura International Plc
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.139 ERA 1996
- Williams v Compare Maxam Ltd
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services
- Basildon & Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust v Weerasingh
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.