Case 3311188/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr William Hickes v Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Preliminary Hearing in Public — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311188/2023
- Decision date
- 30 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Boyes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr William Hickes
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing in public on 11 November 2024 before Employment Judge Boyes sitting alone, the tribunal considered jurisdictional issues and whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010. The claim form had been presented on 26 September 2023 after Acas early conciliation between 24 July 2023 and 4 September 2023. The respondent accepted that the claimant resigned on 26 September 2023 and did not pursue the point that the unfair dismissal claim had been made prematurely or that early conciliation did not cover it.
The tribunal held that the constructive unfair dismissal complaint was in time and that there was sufficient connection between the early conciliation certificate and the subsequent unfair dismissal claim. By contrast, it held that the breach of contract complaint had been presented before the effective date of termination and that, applying Capek v Lincolnshire County Council, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with it.
On disability, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had depression from 12 April 2023 to the effective date of termination on 26 November 2023, and that the condition had affected sleep, concentration, motivation and personal care. It relied on the GP records, fit notes, medication history and the occupational health report from Dr Alex Mijares, and it accepted that the impairment had a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities during the relevant period.
The tribunal nevertheless found that the impairment was not long-term at the relevant date. By 26 November 2023 it had lasted about 7.5 months, there was no prognosis or expert evidence showing that it was likely to last at least 12 months, and the claimant had repeatedly said that resolving the work situation would resolve his symptoms. The tribunal therefore found that he was not disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010, so the disability discrimination claim could not succeed on that basis.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal held the constructive unfair dismissal claim was presented in time and that the Acas early conciliation certificate was sufficiently connected to the later resignation, but it did not determine the merits. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that this claim was presented before the effective date of termination and therefore fell outside its jurisdiction under Capek v Lincolnshire County Council. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal accepted that the claimant had depression from 12 April 2023, but held that the impairment was not long-term at the relevant date and so he was not disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 2 Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v Patent Office four-stage approach
- Sullivan v Bury Street Capital Limited
- Cruickshank v Vaw Motorcast Ltd
- All Answers Ltd v Mr W and Ms R
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP
- Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Council
- Igweike v TSB Bank plc
- Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Boyle v SCA Packaging Ltd
- Capek v Lincolnshire County Council
- Compass Group UK & Ireland Ltd v Morgan
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.