Case 3203925/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Michael Barbrook v New City College Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3203925/2021
- Decision date
- 27 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howden-Evans Members
- Panel members
- Ms S Jeary, Mr J Webb
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Michael Barbrook
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMichael Barbrook had worked for Havering Sixth Form College since 1997 and transferred to New City College in August 2019. He was suspended in November 2020 and dismissed in January 2021 after allegations about Friday afternoon sports lessons and Friday morning coaching sessions. The tribunal also extended time for some disability discrimination allegations as just and equitable, but later decided the claims on their merits.
On disability, the tribunal accepted that Mr Barbrook had anxiety and depression from November 2020 and that this caused difficulty sleeping and heart palpitations, with antidepressants prescribed at that time. It nevertheless found that the impairment was not long-term because it had not lasted, and was not likely to last, at least 12 months. The tribunal therefore held that he was not disabled by reason of anxiety and depression for the purposes of the pleaded discrimination claims.
The tribunal accepted that the respondent genuinely believed Mr Barbrook had moved sports lessons, left site early, cancelled coaching sessions and falsified registers. It found, however, that the investigation and appeal were not adequate: key evidence supporting his case was omitted or not pursued, including material from Ms Leaves about previous permission to bring Friday lessons forward, the student focus group evidence, the corrected minutes referring to Mr Allotey, and the CCTV footage itself. The tribunal described the approach as not open-minded and held that the investigation fell outside the range of reasonable investigations, so the dismissal was unfair.
The tribunal upheld the breach of contract claim in relation to notice pay because it found the respondent was not entitled to dismiss without notice. The judgment records that the parties agreed 12 weeks' notice would have been due if notice was payable. The supplied text does not contain a monetary remedy section, so no award figures are recorded here.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed because the investigation and appeal were not within the range of reasonable responses, even though it accepted the dismissing officer and appeal officer genuinely believed misconduct had occurred. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay claim succeeded because the tribunal found the respondent was not entitled to dismiss without notice. The judgment text records that, if notice was due, it would have been 12 weeks, but no monetary figure is stated in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 EqA claim based on something arising in consequence of disability. It was dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant's anxiety and depression did not amount to a qualifying disability for the material period. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Reasonable adjustments claim. It was dismissed for the same reason: the tribunal found no qualifying disability by reason of anxiety and depression, so the claimed duty did not arise on the pleaded basis. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
30 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Ishola v Transport for London
- Nottingham City Transport v Harvey
- Project Management Institute v Latif
- Smith v Churchill's Stairlifts plc
- Fareham College Corporation v Walters
- Chief Constable of West Midlands Police v Garner
- Archibald v Fife Council
- Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust v Foster
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd
- Igen Ltd & others v Wong & others
- s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Foley v Post Office and Midland Bank plc v Madden
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- Turner v East Midlands Trains Ltd
- Whitbread v Hall
- ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance Procedures
- ACAS guide
- Strouthos v London Underground Ltd
- Wilson v Racher 1974 ICR 428 CA, Briscoe v Lubrizol Ltd 2002 IRLR 607
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.