Ms L Sutherland v London Borough of Tower Hamlets — 2021

The claimant brought a CHAD complaint on 1 March 2017, which the respondent accepted was a protected act. The tribunal found that the respondent's process included a parallel consideration of whether the CHAD allegations were malicious and vexatious, and that findings from that process were used as the basis for telling the claimant that she might face disciplinary action.

The reasonable adjustments claim was dismissed. Although the tribunal accepted that the requirement to appeal the CHAD outcome within the prescribed timetable was a PCP, it found that the claimant had not established that stress from her cancer prevented her meeting the deadline, or that the respondent knew or could reasonably have known that the appeal date placed her at a substantial disadvantage.

The harassment related to disability claims were dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was reasonably upset by the delay, the adverse CHAD conclusions, and the refusal to allow an out-of-time appeal, but did not find that the conduct met the statutory harassment threshold or that it was related to the claimant's or her daughter's disability.

The victimisation claim succeeded in respect of two detriments. The tribunal found that the claimant was subjected to detriment when she was told that parts of her CHAD were malicious and vexatious and that disciplinary action might follow, and when uncertainty about disciplinary action continued until 30 July 2019. It found those detriments were because she had raised the CHAD protected act. The tribunal awarded £16,000 for injury to feelings plus £3,650.63 interest, and made no award for psychiatric injury.