Cases6007004/2025

Claimant v Hyperoptic Ltd

28 November 2025Before Employment Judge Jonathan Gidneyremote video

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalnot determined

Claim survives preliminary hearing. The tribunal granted the claimant's application to amend to add disability discrimination claims and found he had complied with the unless order, allowing the case to proceed to full merits hearing.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)not determined

Added by amendment at this preliminary hearing. Claimant alleges dismissal arose from final written warning related to timekeeping, which itself arose from bowel condition requiring frequent toilet breaks. Respondent relied on the warning in dismissal decision.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)not determined

Added by amendment at this preliminary hearing. Claimant alleges respondent had practice of disciplining engineers for excessive idling or long breaks, which placed him at disadvantage due to bowel condition requiring more frequent toilet breaks, and that respondent should have adjusted this practice.

Breach of Contractnot determined

Claim for failure to provide written terms and conditions of employment remains live and will proceed to full merits hearing.

Wrongful Dismissalnot determined

Claim remains live and will proceed to full merits hearing. Claimant seeks pay in lieu of notice of £5,792.30.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesnot determined

Claim remains live and will proceed to full merits hearing. Claimant alleges unauthorised deduction from holiday pay of £377.52 and other unauthorised deductions of £724.03.

Othernot determined

Failure to provide reasons for dismissal claim remains live. Claimant seeks £1,448.06 for this statutory breach.

Facts

The claimant, an engineer with a bowel condition, was dismissed in October 2024. He had received a final written warning in March 2024 for excessive vehicle idling, timekeeping issues, and allegedly using his work vehicle for personal use (stopping at home to use bathroom facilities). He was later dismissed following a health and safety report, with the respondent taking the final written warning into account in escalating the sanction from first written warning to dismissal. The respondent applied to strike out his claim for non-compliance with tribunal directions, leading to an unless order. The claimant sought to amend his claim to add disability discrimination claims.

Decision

The tribunal found the claimant had substantially complied with the unless order by providing a schedule of loss. The tribunal granted his application to amend the claim to add complaints of discrimination arising from disability (s.15 Equality Act) and failure to make reasonable adjustments (s.20-21), finding these claims were based on facts already pleaded in the original claim form relating to his bowel condition and the disciplinary warning. The case will proceed to a full merits hearing on all claims.

Practical note

A claimant who pleads the factual matrix of disability discrimination in an original claim form may be permitted to add the legal labels at a later stage, as this constitutes relabelling existing facts rather than introducing a wholly new cause of action, particularly where the respondent suffers no real prejudice.

Legal authorities cited

Abercrombie & Ors v AGA Rangemaster Ltd [2013] ICR 213Chaudhry v Cerberus Security Monitoring Services Ltd [2022] EAT 172Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] IRLR 661Pathan v South London Islamic Centre [2013] UKEAT/0312/13Szmidt v AC Produce Imports Ltd [2014] UKEAT/0291/14Ali v Office of National Statistics [2005] IRLR 201Harvey v Port of Tilbury (London) Ltd [1999] IRLR 693Redhead v London Borough of Hounslow [2011] UKEAT/0409/11

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.20-21Equality Act 2010 s.15

Case details

Case number
6007004/2025
Decision date
28 November 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
telecoms
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
engineer
Salary band
£30,000–£40,000

Claimant representation

Represented
No