Case 6000789/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Gavin Lee v Hull University Teaching Hospital NHS Trust AT A HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 6000789/2023
- Decision date
- 8 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Members
- Venue
- Hull and
- Panel members
- D Wilks, K Lannaman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Gavin Lee
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint. It found that the respondent had shown a conduct-related reason for dismissal, namely the claimant's conduct towards his ex-partner and failure to comply with an instruction not to contact her, and that the respondent had a genuine belief on reasonable grounds after a sufficient investigation. The tribunal also found that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
The disability discrimination complaints were dismissed. The tribunal considered the pleaded allegations of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, reasonable adjustments, harassment related to disability, and victimisation. It found various allegations were not because of disability, did not amount to detriments or harassment, were not objectively related to disability, or were out of time, and the judgment's operative decision was that all claims were dismissed.
No remedy was awarded because the claims were dismissed. The tribunal noted, in relation to unfair dismissal, that even if dismissal had been unfair, the claimant's later guilty plea to a stalking offence would have been evidence of culpable contributory conduct and any award would likely have been substantially reduced or extinguished.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that all claims are dismissed. The tribunal found the respondent had shown a conduct-related reason for dismissal and that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Covers the direct disability discrimination allegations identified in the judgment. The tribunal found alleged matters were either not because of disability, not detriments, out of time, or otherwise not made out. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Covers the discrimination arising from disability complaint under section 15 Equality Act 2010. The prompt text is truncated in the middle, but the judgment's operative result dismisses all claims. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Covers the reasonable adjustments complaint under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. The prompt text includes the pleaded PCPs and adjustments but the judgment's operative result dismisses all claims. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The harassment allegations related to disability were dismissed. One alleged comment was treated as significantly out of time, and other allegations were found not to be harassment, not related to disability, or not objectively capable of the pleaded effect. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- section 98(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Strouthos v London Underground Ltd
- Santamera v IEC Ltd t/a Express Cargo Forwarding
- Wincanton Group plc v Stone
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 212 Equality Act 2010
- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v Serra Garau
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.