Claimant v HBOS plc

The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed for capability, a potentially fair reason. VJ had an honest belief on reasonable grounds that the claimant was incapable of performing his role, as he consistently failed to meet basic performance goals despite significant support, retraining, and adjustments. The procedure followed was fair and fell within the range of reasonable responses.

The tribunal concluded that any hypothetical comparator who was not performing the basic requirements of their role would have been dismissed in the same way. The claimant's disability did not influence the respondent's decision to dismiss; the reason was solely the respondent's genuine belief that the claimant was not capable of carrying out his role.

The tribunal found that the claimant's absences and any alleged pressure to return to work prematurely did not have a significant influence on the respondent's decision to dismiss. The decision was made solely because the respondent believed the claimant was not capable of carrying out the role, at a time when OH had confirmed he was fit to work.

The tribunal did not accept that the respondent had a PCP of pressurising employees to return to work prematurely. In relation to requiring certain levels of performance, the tribunal concluded that the proposed adjustments (changing line manager, stress risk assessments, mental health advocate) would not have alleviated any disadvantage, or in the case of the mental health advocate, had already been offered.