Mr Carl Hughes v Oversolve Ltd — 2025

Mr Carl Hughes was employed by Oversolve Ltd as a sales executive from July 2004 and was dismissed on 17 March 2023 following disciplinary proceedings. The tribunal accepted the respondent's case that there had been a breakdown in trust and confidence and that dismissal was for some other substantial reason. Applying section 98 ERA 1996, and referring to Harper v National Coal Board and Eszias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust, the tribunal found a reasonable employer would have dismissed in those circumstances, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.

The claimant's disability was conceded and the tribunal recorded his 2015 brain aneurism and stroke, which affected his sight and other functions. His reasonable adjustments case was based on alleged expectations to work from home using only a mobile phone, the lack of a laptop until March 2022, and the lack of remote access to the Clarity system. The tribunal held there was no proved PCP in the way alleged, no substantial disadvantage, and no failure to make reasonable adjustments because he was still able to do his job and, when provided with a laptop, often preferred to use his phone or iPad instead.

On victimisation, the tribunal accepted that the grievance of 22 July 2022 was a protected act under section 27 EqA 2010, but found the later treatment relied on by the claimant was not because of that grievance. It found Ms Wharton's withdrawal of assistance followed the claimant's refusal to provide information she needed, and that the suspension, disciplinary process and dismissal were caused by his conduct and lack of cooperation rather than the protected act, applying the causation approach it referred to from Igen Limited and ors v Wong. The tribunal also dismissed the unauthorised deduction claim, which it treated as including unpaid commission and wages for the furlough period, because it was out of time and not properly particularised; the claimant had not provided detailed calculations despite an order to do so.