Ms L Gallagher v Essity UK Ltd — 2024

Ms L Gallagher brought claims against Essity UK Ltd for constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and notice-pay/breach of contract issues. The tribunal heard evidence about alleged false documents used in earlier Bunzl litigation and about documents and emails deployed in the present proceedings, including a purported email from 'Ian Lawrence' and medical certificates relied on in the grievance and tribunal process.

On the balance of probabilities, the tribunal found the 'Ian Lawrence' email was false and that the medical certificates were fabricated by the claimant. It preferred the evidence of Ms Kapp, found the claimant vague, evasive, and lacking corroboration, and relied in part on the earlier Bunzl findings that the claimant had knowingly misled the tribunal and had used forged or doctored material. The tribunal held that the present proceedings had been conducted scandalously or unreasonably and that a fair trial was no longer possible; strike out was the only proportionate response.

On the merits, the tribunal said the constructive unfair dismissal claim had no reasonable prospect of success. It considered the evidence suggested the claimant resigned to avoid a disciplinary process arising from alleged gross misconduct, and it also noted that she had obtained other employment before resigning. The tribunal therefore concluded she was unlikely to establish either constructive dismissal or unfair dismissal, and it also thought she was likely to be found to have resigned without giving notice.

For disability discrimination, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had breast cancer and that she was disabled at the material time, but held that the alleged detriments from 20 November 2020 to 4 January 2021 were far outside the limitation period. It found no continuing act and no good basis for a just and equitable extension, and it also doubted that she could shift the burden of proof in light of the credibility findings. The notice-pay/breach of contract claim was also struck out because the tribunal considered she would not be able to show a repudiatory breach. No remedy was awarded.