Claimant v Quantum Care Ltd — 2019

This was a preliminary hearing on strike out and deposit applications, not a final merits hearing. The tribunal substituted Quantum Care Ltd as the sole respondent, dismissed the claims against Quantum Care (Developments) Ltd, struck out allegations 1 to 7 and 11 to 22 under rule 37, and made a £300 deposit order under rule 39 for allegation 8. Allegations 9 and 10 were allowed to proceed. The judge rejected the respondent's submission that the claimant's conduct was vexatious or unreasonable.

The disability-based allegations failed because the claimant's road traffic accident injuries had resolved by at latest October 2017 and did not amount to a substantial, long-term impairment at the relevant time. On that evidence, the tribunal held there was no realistic prospect of proving disability under s6 Equality Act 2010. The perceived mental disability case, based on comments attributed to Mrs Howe, also had no reasonable prospect of showing perceived disability. The reasonable adjustments claim fell with the disability issue, and the victimisation allegation failed because only the 5 July 2017 grievance was capable of being a protected act; the claimed detriments were said to arise from 2017 events and were out of time under s123 Equality Act 2010.

The sick pay claim failed because company sick pay under the Staff Handbook was discretionary and not a contractual entitlement, so there was no breach of contract or unlawful deduction on the pleaded facts. The tribunal also held that the TULRCA ss183-184 allegation gave no individual right of action. The grouped claims under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, Human Rights Act 1998, Defamation Act 2013, duty of care, Care Act 2014, health and safety legislation, and data protection legislation were struck out for lack of tribunal jurisdiction, while the separate complaint about Unison and the allegations directed at the CQC and Hertfordshire County Council failed because they were aimed at other legal entities.

On whistleblowing, the tribunal accepted that the August 2018 text about the carp was only arguably capable of amounting to a protected disclosure. It nevertheless found little reasonable prospect that the suspension, disciplinary process, and grievance handling were because of whistleblowing rather than the wording of the message, and it attached a £300 deposit order to that allegation. By contrast, the constructive wrongful dismissal and constructive unfair dismissal claims were allowed to continue because there were arguable breaches of contract and the tribunal was not prepared to conclude that the claimant had necessarily affirmed her contract before resigning.