Mr B Gibson v Laser Expertise Limited — 2026

At a preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Victoria Butler struck out Mr Gibson's automatically unfair dismissal and discrimination claims under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because they had no reasonable prospect of success. His notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of pay claims were not determined and were permitted to proceed.

Mr Gibson alleged direct discrimination, including discrimination by association, arising from his daughter's medical needs following her birth. The Tribunal considered disability as the possible protected characteristic, but Mr Gibson confirmed that his daughter's health condition was not a disability. She had been discharged from neonatal intensive care and was well, subject to follow-up appointments and monitoring. The Tribunal held that, without a protected characteristic, the associative discrimination claim could not succeed.

The Tribunal found that Mr Gibson did not qualify for paternity leave or parental leave and had not exercised a right to neonatal care leave. It also found that the time-off-for-dependants provisions did not apply to the hospital appointments because they were planned rather than unexpected or sudden. References to emergency visits and his partner's difficulties had not appeared in the claim form or further particulars, and the Tribunal assessed the claim as pleaded.

The Tribunal also considered the respondent's stated reason for dismissal: failure to follow management instructions and absence-reporting procedures, rather than taking time off itself. Mr Gibson disputed that account and maintained that he had reported his absences, but the Tribunal found no evidence indicating that he was dismissed for attending his daughter's hospital appointments. It therefore struck out the automatically unfair dismissal claim. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.