Claimant v THG Nutrition Limited

The tribunal found that while redundancy was genuine, the dismissal was unfair due to inadequate consultation (no meaningful consultation on selection criteria or avoiding redundancy altogether) and serious failings in the selection process (no transparent or objective assessment method, no scoring matrix, and contradictory evidence about why the comparator was preferred).

The tribunal found the burden of proof shifted to the respondent due to the large age disparity (claimant 59, comparator 26), opacity of selection process, contradictory explanations for selection, failure to call Mr Coates as a witness, and lack of transparent assessment criteria. The respondent failed to prove age played no part in the decision, particularly given reliance on 'commercial awareness' which could reflect age stereotypes.

The tribunal found that the decision-makers (Mr Lunn and Mr Coates) had no knowledge of the claimant's disability. They worked in a different part of the large business, had not been provided a personnel file by HR, and the disability was not revealed during the interview process. Accordingly, disability played no part in the selection decision.

The tribunal found that while dismissal was unfavourable treatment, disability or something arising from disability played no part in the decision to dismiss. There was nothing in the assessment notes suggesting the claimant was marked down because of her inability to undertake physical tasks or that Mr Ng was marked up because he could.

The tribunal noted it was unclear whether this claim was pursued. While critical of the selection process, the tribunal found no express questions that weighed ability to undertake physical tasks and it was not explained how the selection criteria disadvantaged the claimant. The claim appeared to rely on assessors knowing about disability and marking her down, which the tribunal found did not happen.

The tribunal found that Mr Lunn and Mr Coates had no knowledge of the claimant's protected acts (grievances in 2020 and 2022) as they knew almost nothing about her work history and background. Accordingly, the dismissal was nothing to do with these grievances.

Claims relating to acts and omissions in 2020 (being assigned physical tasks, threatening letter from Kevin Docherty) and 2022 (two suspensions by Darren Gaskell) were found to be out of time. The tribunal found these were not part of a continuing act of discrimination and it was not just and equitable to extend time, noting the claimant had raised grievances at the time but failed to explain adequately why claims were not brought earlier beyond saying she was still employed.

Claims relating to harassment in 2020 and 2022 were dismissed as out of time. The tribunal found no continuing act of discrimination linking these incidents to the 2023 dismissal and declined to extend time on just and equitable grounds.