Mr H Alpsen v Haringey GP Group Ltd — 2025

The tribunal dismissed all complaints brought by Mr H Alpsen against Haringey GP Group Ltd. It held that he had a mental impairment that met the Equality Act 2010 definition of disability by no later than 14 May 2021 and that, on 21 August 2023, the relevant disability complaints arose in consequence of that disability. It also held that the claim form had included discriminatory dismissal complaints, but found that the claimant had not been dismissed: he resigned after being told that there would be an investigation meeting, and that did not amount to constructive dismissal.

On the race complaints, the tribunal found that the alleged coat incident happened in autumn 2019, before the claimant became an employee of the respondent, and that it was a self-contained incident that was out of time. It found that Ms Greer used the word 'magpie' only once, jokingly and without any intention to call the claimant a thief, and that this was not harassment related to race or direct discrimination because of race. The allegations that Dr Sennett, Dr Rai and Dr Pattni mocked the claimant's accent were not proved, were often very vague, and in any event were either out of time or not shown to have been race-related.

The tribunal also rejected the direct race discrimination allegations concerning promotion, training, probation, line management support, disciplinary treatment and the handling of concerns. It found that the claimant's comparators were not in materially similar circumstances, or that the claimant had already applied and been appointed where others had not, or that the allegations were not factually made out. It found no facts from which it could conclude that race influenced the respondent's decisions, whether consciously or unconsciously.

On the disability discrimination claim, the tribunal accepted that the claimant's sickness absence from late July to 20 August 2023 arose in consequence of his disability. However, it found that Mr Fox did consider the claimant's wellbeing on his return to work, that he recorded genuine concerns and told the claimant an investigation meeting would follow, and that the meeting was not aggressive or motivated by the claimant's sickness absence. The tribunal therefore found no discrimination arising from disability.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the respondent had reasonable and proper cause to invite the claimant to a genuine investigation meeting under its policy, that Mr Fox had not prejudged matters, and that the invitation was not calculated or likely to destroy trust and confidence. It held that there was no earlier fundamental breach either, and that the resignation was not in response to a repudiatory breach. The tribunal also recorded that dismissal-related complaints and the events of 21 August 2023 were one day out of time because the claim was presented on 2 January 2024 rather than 1 January 2024, but it did not make further time-extension findings because the complaints failed on the merits.