Urszula Andruskiewicz (Personal Representative of the Estate of Piotr Andruszkiewicz) v Splash Damage Ltd — 2026

Piotr Andruszkiewicz's estate pursued claims of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, indirect disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation. The allegations concerned home-working arrangements, office-attendance requirements, a Performance Improvement Plan, dismissal on 20 November 2024 and the later cancellation of private medical insurance. The conditions relied on as disabilities were chronic pain, chronic fatigue and ADHD. The claimant no longer advanced unfair dismissal or automatic unfair dismissal claims.

Applying the four-stage test in Goodwin v The Patent Office, the tribunal found evidence that the conditions impaired Mr Andruszkiewicz's physical or mental health and affected day-to-day activities. Taking the case at its highest, there might also have been evidence that the effects were substantial and long term. The tribunal therefore rejected the argument that the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing disability and found that the threshold in Rule 38(1)(a) was not met.

The tribunal instead found under Rule 38(1)(e) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 that a fair hearing was no longer possible. Following Mr Andruszkiewicz's death, the respondent could not question him about when the effects began or ended, their severity and fluctuation, their effect on day-to-day activities, or whether they arose from the three conditions relied on rather than other conditions. Evidence from his brother, a former colleague, employment records and medical records could provide only an incomplete picture, and inconsistencies could not be tested with Mr Andruszkiewicz.

In assessing proportionality and the balance of prejudice, the tribunal found no fault on either side. It found that the resulting unfairness to the respondent was inevitable and could not be cured by striking out only some claims, making an unless order, requiring a deposit or making a costs order, because disability was central to every remaining claim. All five claims were therefore struck out. The tribunal did not decide the respondent's other arguments about direct discrimination and victimisation, or its alternative application for a deposit order. No monetary award was made.