Case 4105531/2020 · Employment Tribunal
J Chalmers S Singh Mr David Daly v Represented by: J Colledge - Solicitor Robinsons Scotland Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4105531/2020
- Decision date
- 22 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R McPherson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J Chalmers S Singh Mr David Daly
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing the claimant was recorded as no longer insisting on a redundancy payment claim because he had already received statutory redundancy pay. The tribunal accepted that he was disabled at the relevant times. It also held that relevant discrimination events before 8 July 2020 were in time on a just and equitable basis, and that the claimant's 7 May 2020 conversation about continued employment was support rather than a binding promise.
On the unfair dismissal issue, the tribunal found that the claimant's role was a unique post and that the requirements of the business for employees to carry out that work had diminished as a result of the Covid-19 downturn. It accepted that the claimant's tasks were reallocated within the existing accounts team, that there were no suitable alternative roles at the date of termination or appeal, and that the dismissal was by reason of redundancy. Although there had been no consultation at the initial stage, the respondent later acknowledged redundancy on appeal, paid statutory redundancy pay and an additional two weeks' pay, and the tribunal found no financial loss on which to make an award.
The discrimination claims failed. For direct discrimination under s13 EA 2010, the tribunal held that David Welch was not a proper comparator because he was a qualified accountant and materially different from the claimant. For s15 EA 2010, it found the dismissal was not because of anything arising in consequence of disability and that there was no requirement for the claimant to work in the office rather than at home. For ss20 and 21 EA 2010, the tribunal held that there was no general PCP requiring office working, so no substantial disadvantage arose. The tribunal also refused the claimant's expenses application, finding that although there had been delays and late submissions, the respondent's conduct did not amount to vexatious or otherwise unreasonable conduct justifying an award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy. It held the requirements of the business for work of the kind the claimant did had diminished during the Covid-19 downturn, and that the respondent ultimately acted reasonably under s98(4) ERA 1996 and s139 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination under s13 EA 2010 failed. The claimant relied on David Welch as comparator, but the tribunal found Mr Welch was materially different because he was a qualified accountant, and that the termination was due to redundancy rather than disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under s15 EA 2010 failed. The tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed because of any requirement to work in the office rather than at home; it held no such requirement existed and that the dismissal was due to redundancy. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The reasonable adjustments claim under ss20 and 21 EA 2010 failed. Although the respondent knew the claimant was disabled, the tribunal found there was no general PCP requiring employees to work in the office, so no substantial disadvantage arose. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s98(4) ERA 1996
- s139 ERA 1996
- Murray v Foyle Meats
- s123 EA 2010 just and equitable extension
- s136 EA 2010
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Rule 76(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
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.