ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment in Case No: 8001583/2025 Heard at Edinburgh on 20-23 January 2026 with Deliberation on February 2026 Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Mr Rhys Maddison v Represented by: Mr J Lawson, Solicitor Suresave Energy Services UK Limited — 2026

Mr Maddison was employed as a Site Manager from 27 June 2022 and it was agreed that he was disabled by cancer. He had a first period of cancer-related absence from October 2022, returned on a phased basis in January 2023, and then began a further long-term absence on 19 February 2024. He underwent further surgery on 30 August 2024 and remained absent until his dismissal on 31 January 2025, by which time he was covered by a GP fit note expiring on 2 February 2025. The respondent obtained three occupational health reports, held welfare calls, and convened a capability meeting on 31 January 2025, after which Mr Black dismissed him on ill-health capability grounds; the appeal was rejected on 20 March 2025.

The tribunal accepted that capability was the reason for dismissal and held that the respondent had a potentially fair reason under section 98(2)(a) ERA 1996. It rejected the submission that the respondent had to obtain direct advice from the claimant's clinical team, or that the outcome had been predetermined. Relying on the occupational health reports, the GP fit notes, the claimant's own statements in welfare calls and at the meeting, and the absence of any medical evidence showing that he was fit to return to work or would be fit within a defined reasonable period, the tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to treat ill-health capability as a sufficient reason for dismissal under section 98(4) ERA 1996.

On the disability discrimination claims, the tribunal held that the respondent's aim of managing its business was legitimate and that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving that aim. It found that the claimant's role, as the site contract evolved, had to be carried out substantially on site, that no suitable alternative role was available, and that the temporary arrangements used to cover his duties could not reasonably be sustained for an indeterminate period, although they could have continued for a further month without significant impact. On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal accepted that the Absence/Capability Policy placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage of dismissal or the likelihood of dismissal, but held that a phased return, working from home, or an alternative role would not have avoided that disadvantage and were not steps it was reasonable for the respondent to take at the material time. All claims were dismissed and no award was made.