Case 3202002/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Arian v The Spitalfields Practice — 2023
- Case reference
- 3202002/2019
- Decision date
- 13 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Burgher Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr J Webb, Mr L O'Callaghan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Arian
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's whistleblowing detriment claim under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 and his whistleblowing dismissal claim under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. It also dismissed the direct disability discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010.
The unfair dismissal claim under sections 94 and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded. The tribunal concluded that the respondent had established some other substantial reason justifying dismissal, and it applied Polkey to find there was a 75% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed if fair and reasonable processes had been implemented.
The section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim was found to be established on the facts. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had been medically suspended against his wish for the period 20 December 2018 to 30 January 2019, but held that the claim had been presented outside the time limit in section 123 Equality Act 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so the claim was dismissed.
No remedy was finally determined in the judgment. The tribunal stated that if remedy could not be resolved between the parties, the matter would be listed for a remedy hearing and appropriate case management orders would be made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimant was subjected to detriment because he made protected disclosures was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimant was dismissed for making protected disclosures was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim under sections 94 and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded. The tribunal held that the respondent established some other substantial reason justifying dismissal and found there was a 75% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed if fair and reasonable processes had been implemented, applying Polkey. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The direct disability discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim that the claimant was treated unfavourably because of something arising from his disability, namely medical suspension against his wish from 20 December 2018 to 30 January 2019, was established on the facts but dismissed because it was presented out of time under section 123 Equality Act 2010 and the tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Polkey
- section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 94 and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.