Claimant v Pansy Corna Limited (creditors voluntary liquidation)
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was subjected to detriment by the respondent on the ground that he had made a protected disclosure under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as amended.
The claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed under sections 100 and 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, relating to health and safety and whistleblowing grounds respectively.
The tribunal found that the claimant was a disabled person at all material times in accordance with section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, that the respondent had the requisite knowledge, and that the claimant was treated less favourably than a hypothetical comparator.
The claimant was treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of his disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.
The claimant was harassed in relation to his disability under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010.
Facts
The claimant, Luke Blaidd, was employed by Pansy Corna Limited, which is now in creditors voluntary liquidation. He made a protected disclosure and was subsequently subjected to detriments and ultimately dismissed. The claimant was a disabled person at the material times and the respondent had knowledge of his disability. The respondent treated him less favorably, subjected him to harassment, and treated him unfavorably because of something arising from his disability. The respondent did not attend the hearing.
Decision
The tribunal found all of the claimant's claims succeeded: whistleblowing detriment, automatic unfair dismissal under sections 100 and 103A ERA 1996, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and harassment. The respondent failed to comply with the ACAS Code and a 25% uplift was applied to all awards. Total compensation awarded was £12,084.76 including injury to feelings of £8,000, loss of earnings, interest, and ACAS uplifts.
Practical note
Employers who dismiss employees for making protected disclosures or fail to accommodate disabled employees face automatic unfair dismissal findings and discrimination liability, with ACAS Code uplifts significantly increasing total awards even where loss of earnings is relatively modest.
Award breakdown
Vento band: lower
Adjustments
Respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6010090/2024
- Decision date
- 25 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister