Case 3307141/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Prince Blackson Nyamekye v Phase II Care Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3307141/2018
- Decision date
- 28 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Tobin
- Panel members
- Mr S Bury, Mr M Kaltz
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Prince Blackson Nyamekye
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed for a conduct-related reason, but the respondent's investigation, disciplinary process and appeal were outside the range of reasonable responses. It did not accept that the respondent had an honest belief in the claimant's guilt or reasonable grounds for that belief, and found significant breaches of the ACAS Code of Practice.
The respondent accepted that the claimant was disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, with dyslexia being the relevant disability. The tribunal dismissed the reasonable adjustments complaint because the issues relied on concerned attendance and participation at meetings linked to abdominal pain and stress-related illness rather than dyslexia, and because the claimant had not established a PCP causing substantial disadvantage by reason of dyslexia.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant was unfairly dismissed but was not subject to disability discrimination. Remedy for unfair dismissal was left to later case management orders.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. Remedy was not determined in this judgment; case management orders were to follow. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held that the respondent did not fail in its duty to make reasonable adjustments. The claimant's disability was dyslexia. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- ACAS Code of Practice
- West Midlands Cooperative Society Limited v Tipton
- range of reasonable responses
- Foley v Post Office
- HSBC Bank plc v Madden
- J Sainsbury plc v Hitt
- Whitbread plc v Hall
- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- ss.20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- Environment Agency v Rowan
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.
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.