Mr R Murphy v Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service — 2026

The claimant was employed as an Executive Officer, also known as a Team Leader, and had been absent from work from 1 March 2024 because of an inguinal hernia. He received sick pay, moved to half pay from 1 September 2024 and later nil pay. At the time of dismissal on 15 April 2025, he had been absent for over a year, had no known date for surgery, and had told the respondent that without the operation he was not fit for work. The tribunal accepted that he was disabled under section 6 Equality Act 2010 and that the respondent knew this no later than dismissal.

For unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was capability, based on the claimant's long-term absence and lack of an identified return date. It held that the respondent consulted the claimant sufficiently, warned him that dismissal was possible, considered whether any work could be done from home, and had enough information about the medical position despite not obtaining a second occupational health appointment. The tribunal noted the ongoing temporary cover for the Team Leader role, the uncertainty for that employee and the respondent, and the claimant's communication difficulties. It concluded that the respondent could not reasonably be expected to wait longer and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.

The reasonable adjustments claim was allowed to proceed as within jurisdiction on a just and equitable extension, despite being made late. The PCP relied on was the Attendance Management Policy, and the tribunal accepted that it placed the claimant at the substantial disadvantage of dismissal and that the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known of that disadvantage.

The proposed adjustment was further exploration of the claimant working from home. The tribunal found that this had been explored at the attendance review meeting, including discussion of making or answering calls, but the claimant could not say when he could work because pain and medication were unpredictable. The tribunal accepted that managing remote work in those circumstances was not practicable and held that the proposed home-working arrangement was not a reasonable adjustment. Both claims were therefore dismissed and no remedy was awarded.