Claimant v Barchester Healthcare Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant did not specify his disability, provided no evidence of any impairment, and explicitly stated he did not have a recognised disability. He could not establish that he had an impairment with a substantial long-term adverse effect on day-to-day activities as required by the Equality Act 2010 s.6, rendering the claim unsustainable.
The claimant was dismissed for being unvaccinated without medical exemption. By the date of dismissal, Government Regulations prohibited unvaccinated persons from working in care homes. The respondent's policy and procedure had already been found substantively fair in sample cases upheld by the EAT. The claimant had no medical exemption at appeal, refused to discuss it, and had no reasonable prospect of showing procedural defects sufficient to render dismissal unfair.
Application to amend refused. No redundancy situation existed—the respondent was not closing operations or reducing headcount. The claimant was dismissed for being unvaccinated, not by reason of redundancy. Had he been vaccinated, he would have continued in his role.
Facts
The claimant worked as head of maintenance for a care home operator during the Covid-19 pandemic. The respondent introduced a mandatory vaccination policy for all staff working in care homes. The claimant received one vaccine dose in February 2021 but reported adverse symptoms and did not proceed with the second dose. His GP advised there was no medical basis to avoid the second vaccine. The claimant was dismissed on 17 November 2021, after Government Regulations came into force prohibiting unvaccinated persons from working in care homes. At appeal he had no medical exemption and declined to discuss his vaccination status.
Decision
The tribunal struck out both claims as having no reasonable prospect of success. The disability discrimination claim failed because the claimant could not establish he had a disability as defined in the Equality Act 2010. The unfair dismissal claim was bound to fail because binding findings from earlier sample cases established the respondent's policy and dismissal process was fair, and by the date of dismissal Government Regulations legally required vaccination, making continued employment impossible without it.
Practical note
Strike-out is appropriate even in discrimination and unfair dismissal cases where earlier tribunal findings in sample cases have established core facts, and the individual claimant's circumstances do not materially differ or offer any prospect of a different outcome.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1301560/2022
- Decision date
- 31 October 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Head of Maintenance
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No