Ms E Tabo v Leeds International Pianoforte Competition — 2026

The Tribunal heard complaints of unfair dismissal, unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, and direct disability discrimination. It found Ms Tabo’s evidence reliable, consistent and credible, and found Ms Sinclair’s evidence lacking in credibility in a number of respects. The Tribunal found that Ms Sinclair did not have constructive knowledge of disability by late autumn 2024, but did have constructive knowledge from 2 December 2024, when Ms Tabo told her about what she referred to as a suspected diagnosis of bipolar disorder.

On unfair dismissal, the Tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was redundancy, because there was a reduction in the Respondent’s need for finance work. However, it found that the process was driven by trying to avoid Ms Tabo acquiring the right to complain of unfair dismissal, rather than by carrying out a fair and reasonable procedure. It found that there was a settled intention by 16 December 2024 to terminate her employment, that the consultation was rushed, that no occupational health referral was made after Ms Tabo reported a mental health crisis from A&E, and that no reasonable employer could have dismissed her on 12 March 2025 in those circumstances.

The Tribunal upheld the s 15 Equality Act 2010 complaint. It found that difficulty completing tasks within expected timeframes was something arising in consequence of Ms Tabo’s disability, and that performance concerns flowing from that difficulty had a material influence on the decision to dismiss her. The Respondent established a legitimate aim of securing appropriate specialist financial expertise and financial oversight, but the Tribunal was not satisfied that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving that aim, because alternatives had not been considered with an open mind and the process had been rushed before she accrued unfair dismissal rights.

The direct disability discrimination complaints were dismissed. The Tribunal accepted that meetings were held without Ms Tabo and that she may have felt excluded, but found this was because she was being dealt with separately in a redundancy process and not because of disability. It found that the failure to progress a development plan had started before the Respondent knew of her disability, that Statutory Sick Pay was paid because this was the first longer absence the Respondent had had to address with HR advice, and that dismissal was caused by performance concerns arising in consequence of disability rather than by disability itself. The judgment dealt with liability only and stated that remedy would be determined at a separate remedy hearing.