Case 3320923/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Frame, Solicitor For the v Miss Henning, Solicitor — 2021
- Case reference
- 3320923/2021
- Decision date
- 20 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Members
- Venue
- Norwich
- Panel members
- Mrs Salmon, Mr Kidd
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Frame, Solicitor For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr David Waltham transferred from EON to Morrison Data Services Limited on 1 September 2020. He had longstanding osteoarthritis and, before transfer, had worked on reduced workload with adjustments at EON. After transfer he was absent from work, the respondent sought an occupational health referral, and the tribunal noted that other claims for holiday and notice pay appeared to have been withdrawn.
On disability, the tribunal held that Mr Waltham was not disabled within s.6 Equality Act 2010 because, although he may have had a physical impairment, the evidence did not show a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. It considered the medical material produced, including historical records and fit notes, but said that evidence did not assist him on the statutory test. Even if he had been disabled, the reasonable adjustments claim failed because the respondent's meter-reading business could not feasibly replicate the EON-style reduced workload, and the adjustments identified by occupational health were limited to wide-fitting footwear, a strap for the handheld device, a direct discussion about duties, and a phased return.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found the dismissal fair. It accepted that the respondent held welfare and capability meetings, obtained an independent occupational health report, considered the claimant's own position and alternative roles, and offered a phased return before dismissing him for capability by letter dated 23 July 2021. The appeal was heard on 6 August 2021 and was not upheld on 20 August 2021; the tribunal held that the decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Capability dismissal following long-term sickness absence; the tribunal held the decision was fair and within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held the claimant was not disabled within s.6 Equality Act 2010 and, even if he had been, the reasonable adjustments claim was not well founded on the facts. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- four sequential questions for disability
- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.98(2)(a) ERA 1996
- s.98(3)(a) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- range of reasonable responses
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.