: A Grant & J Anderson B Tank v Home Help Me Care Limited st and 2 others — 2026

The Tribunal unanimously dismissed the claimant's complaints of detriment for making protected disclosures. It found that none of the communications relied upon qualified as protected disclosures: some alleged statements had not been made, some communications did not convey sufficient information, some were made to bodies that were neither the employer nor prescribed persons, and for others the Tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant genuinely believed the information was disclosed in the public interest. Although it found three matters amounted to detriments—R2's use of the word “erratic”, the temporary restriction of access to business systems and banking transactions, and reports concerning allegations about Sunside Limited to regulatory bodies—it found no causal connection between those detriments and any asserted disclosure.

The claimant was disabled for Equality Act purposes by bilateral tendonitis posterior, an underactive thyroid and perimenopause, which the respondents accepted. The Tribunal also found that anxiety and depression constituted disabilities from 21 August 2023 and accepted, for statutory purposes rather than as medical diagnoses, impairments of ADHD and autism. It found, however, that the respondents neither knew nor could reasonably have been expected to know of the anxiety, depression, ADHD or autism disabilities during the relevant period. The direct disability discrimination complaints failed because the claimant did not establish facts from which discrimination could be inferred and the respondents provided accepted explanations for the relevant treatment, including the sickness absence, the unauthorised dividend payments and the proposed occupational health assessment. Disability discrimination by association and indirect disability discrimination were withdrawn and dismissed.

The reasonable-adjustments complaints concerned a five-day appeal period, obtaining an occupational health report before a return to work, access to medical records, and the grievance and appeal policy. The requested extension of the appeal period was granted and did not place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage. The Tribunal found that an occupational health assessment would also have been required for a person without the claimant's disabilities after a lengthy absence, that the medical-records PCP and associated disadvantage were not established, and that no substantial disadvantage was identified for the grievance and appeal policy. The reasonable-adjustments complaints were therefore dismissed.

The claimant, a British person of Indian origin, did not establish direct race discrimination. The Tribunal rejected a number of alleged remarks, found no facts from which race discrimination could be inferred in the remaining matters, and accepted non-discriminatory explanations including sickness absence, the lack of board authority for dividend payments, regulatory requirements, the cost of instructing an additional HR adviser, and the respondents' concerns about allegations in an anonymous letter. Indirect race discrimination was withdrawn and dismissed.