Case 3400186/2017 · Employment Tribunal

In person assisted by Mr S Hussein (Mr Hussein not attending on the last day) For the v Ms C Harrington — 2018

Case reference: 3400186/2017
Decision date: 27 March 2018
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Laidler Members
Venue: Bury St Edmunds
Panel members: Mr T Wilshin, Mr P Bowerman

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In person assisted by Mr S Hussein (Mr Hussein not attending on the last day) For the

Respondent

Ms C Harrington

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, Mr S Chumber, brought claims arising out of his dismissal from Hestia Healthcare Ltd in December 2016. The tribunal refused two late attempts to enlarge the case, including a proposed reliance on an arm-breaking incident and a handwritten statement produced during the hearing, and proceeded on the agreed issues. It found that the relevant disciplinary matter was an incident on 13 October 2016 in which the claimant raised his voice and pointed at colleagues in front of residents, after which he was invited to a disciplinary hearing and summarily dismissed for gross misconduct on 8 December 2016; the appeal was later dismissed on 26 January 2017.

The protected disclosure claim was dismissed. The claimant relied on three alleged disclosures, but the tribunal found that the first pleaded disclosure did not exist as pleaded and that the CQC contact and 15 July 2016 statement did not mention false fluid charts or Caredoc editing. It accepted that the remaining disclosures could potentially amount to protected disclosures because they concerned a resident's dignity and possible health and safety issues, but held that neither the dismissing officer nor the appeal officer knew that the claimant had made protected disclosures. The tribunal found that the dismissal was instead because of the claimant's conduct in front of residents and his refusal to reassure Mr Sales that the behaviour would not recur.

The disability claims also failed. The tribunal accepted that the respondent knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the claimant was disabled from the interview information about severe arthritis, but it held that the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that use of the stairs placed him at a substantial disadvantage. It also rejected the section 13 direct discrimination claim because the dismissal was not because of disability, and the tribunal accepted Mr Sales' evidence that he only learned of the disability after deciding to dismiss. The breach of contract claim failed because the tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to terminate summarily for gross misconduct.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	The claimant relied on alleged protected disclosures said to have been made in June and July 2016 and to the Care Quality Commission on 5 June 2016. The tribunal found that the first pleaded disclosure fell away because the claimant accepted the actual document was the 15 July 2016 statement, and that neither the CQC call nor the July statement contained allegations about false fluid charts or Caredoc editing. It accepted that the CQC contact and the 15 July statement could potentially amount to protected disclosures about RP's dignity and possible health and safety issues, but held that neither the dismissing officer nor the appeal officer knew of those disclosures and that the dismissal was for gross misconduct and the claimant's conduct in front of residents, not because of protected disclosure.	Dismissed	—	—
Disability discrimination	The direct disability discrimination claim under section 13 failed. Although the tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled and that the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known of his disability from interview information, it found that the reason for dismissal was the claimant's behaviour in front of residents and his refusal to reassure Mr Sales that it would not happen again. The tribunal accepted that Mr Sales did not know of the disability until after he had decided to dismiss, and that the same sanction would have been applied to any employee who behaved in the same way.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	The reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20 and 21 failed. The tribunal accepted that the respondent knew the claimant had psoriatic arthritis from the interview process, but held that it did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that requiring him to use stairs placed him at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled employees. It found that the claimant had not given sufficient evidence of the disadvantage, had not raised the issue clearly during employment, and that the duty to make reasonable adjustments therefore did not arise.

Legal tests applied

8 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.