Mr G Callan v Walker Bros (Cockermouth) Limited — 2026

At a preliminary hearing on 30 June 2026, Employment Judge Bright struck out Mr Callan's complaint of direct associative disability discrimination. The judge found that his wife had a physical impairment, kidney stones, with a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities, but that the effect lasted about five months and was not shown to be likely to last at least 12 months or likely to recur. The Tribunal declined to take judicial notice of an asserted likelihood of recurrence because that was not considered sufficiently notorious and there was insufficient evidence of likely recurrence in his wife's case. She was therefore not disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time.

The automatically unfair dismissal complaint under section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. As to pregnancy, the claimant's case was that his absence, rather than his wife's pregnancy, caused the dismissal. As to time off for dependants, his account did not show a reasonable prospect of establishing the circumstances and notification requirements in section 57A, or that taking such time off was the reason or principal reason for dismissal.

The direct associative pregnancy discrimination complaint was also struck out under Rule 38(1)(a). The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of facts being established from which it could conclude that the claimant was dismissed because of his wife's pregnancy: his case was that dismissal resulted from absence connected with caring for her, not that pregnancy itself was the reason.

The wrongful dismissal or notice-pay complaint was struck out because the claimant accepted that he had been paid in lieu of statutory notice, as also shown by the payment report and payslip; his objection concerned the absence of an explanation or calculation. The holiday-pay complaints under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and as unauthorised deductions from wages were struck out because he accepted receiving payment for accrued but untaken holiday, with his objections concerning its method and timing. No monetary award was made, and the hearing listed for 2–4 November 2026 was cancelled.