Case 4102990/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Member N Elliot Tribunal Member G McKay Mr T Glenn v Ltd (In Liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 4102990/2023
- Decision date
- 15 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Jones Tribunal
- Panel members
- N Elliot, G McKay
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member N Elliot Tribunal Member G McKay Mr T Glenn
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by the first respondent with effect from 30 December 2022. It rejected the respondents' position that employment ended by agreement, finding that the claimant had been told he was to be made redundant and had not been offered or agreed negotiated termination terms. It also found that the redundancy process described in the dismissal letter had not occurred and that no fair procedure was followed.
On disability, the tribunal found that the respondents perceived the claimant as having a progressive back condition which was likely to affect his ability to drive, move objects, walk short distances and carry out his role. It found that the reason for dismissal was that the first respondent perceived the claimant would become a disabled person by reason of that progressive condition, and that dismissal was direct discrimination because of perceived disability.
The age discrimination claim was dismissed. Although the tribunal accepted that the second respondent referred to the claimant's age and asked whether he was thinking of retiring, it found that age was not itself a reason for the treatment. The harassment claims were also dismissed because the comments about health, age and retirement did not amount to conduct violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.
The tribunal awarded agreed financial loss of £276.05, £500 for loss of statutory rights and £9,500 for injury to feelings. It applied a 20% uplift because no procedure was followed in relation to dismissal, producing total compensation of £12,331.26.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by the first respondent, not that employment ended by mutual agreement, and that no fair reason or procedure was established. The award was not expressly split between the unfair dismissal and discrimination findings. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found direct discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010 because the claimant was dismissed when the respondents perceived him to be disabled by reason of a progressive back condition. The remedy amount is the injury to feelings award before the 20% ACAS uplift; the total award was not split per claim after uplift. | Upheld | Disability | £9,500 |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal found that the claimant's age may have affected the respondent's perception that he was disabled, but was not itself a reason for the treatment. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found that references to the claimant's age and whether he was thinking of retiring did not amount to harassment. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found that the comment about the claimant's health did not violate his dignity or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,331
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £776
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.95(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.203 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Chief Constable of Norfolk Constabulary v Coffey
- paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Mercia Rubber Mouldings Ltd v Lingwood
- Willow Oak Developments Ltd v Silverwood
- Vento
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.