Case 6001921/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Clifford v Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001921/2023
- Decision date
- 19 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead
- Venue
- in person at the Bristol
- Panel members
- Ms J Kaye, Ms C Lloyd-Jennings
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Clifford
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was a Recovery Co-ordinator employed by the respondent NHS Trust for over 20 years and had bipolar disorder, which the respondent accepted was a disability. The tribunal found that the claimant's dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of sickness absence, and that some of the relevant absence arose in consequence of his bipolar disorder.
The tribunal found, however, that dismissal was justified as a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims relating to attendance, resource management, patient services and consistent sickness absence management. It found there was no less discriminatory course that the respondent could reasonably have been expected to take, given the claimant's prolonged attendance record, lack of sustained improvement, position that he could not return to the SIS role, and the absence of a suitable alternative role.
For unfair dismissal, the tribunal found capability was the reason for dismissal, the respondent had adequately consulted the claimant, relied on up-to-date medical evidence, followed its policy, and gave the claimant opportunities to improve attendance. The tribunal concluded that the dismissal was not procedurally or substantively unfair and was within the range of reasonable responses.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, based on dismissal, was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was for capability, was procedurally and substantively fair, and was within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 were withdrawn and dismissed on withdrawal at the hearing on 14 October 2024. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- City of York Council v Grosset
- Hardys & Hansons plc v Lax
- MacCulloch v Imperial Chemical Industries
- Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No. 2)
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- East Lindsey District Council v Daubney
- range of reasonable responses
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.