Cases3200096/2024

Claimant v Huws Gray Limited

30 January 2025Before Employment Judge ParkEast Londonremote video

Outcome

Partly successful

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The tribunal found the dismissal to be unfair. The tribunal applied the Polkey principle indicating that while the dismissal was procedurally or substantively unfair, the employment would have ended by 31 October 2023 in any event through a fair process.

Direct Discrimination(age)succeeded

The tribunal found that the claimant was treated less favourably because of his age. The claim for direct age discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010 was well-founded and succeeded.

Direct Discrimination(disability)failed

The tribunal found that the claimant was not treated less favourably because of his disability. The claim for direct disability discrimination did not succeed and was dismissed.

Other(disability)succeeded

The tribunal found discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010. The claimant was treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of his disability, and the respondent could not show this treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Facts

Mr P Rogers was dismissed by Huws Gray Limited, a construction sector company. The claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination based on age and disability. The hearing took place over three days via video. The claimant represented himself with assistance from his son, while the respondent was represented by counsel.

Decision

The tribunal found in favour of the claimant on unfair dismissal, direct age discrimination, and discrimination arising from disability. The direct disability discrimination claim failed. However, the tribunal applied a Polkey reduction, finding that employment would have ended by 31 October 2023 in any event.

Practical note

Even where discrimination and unfair dismissal are established, tribunals may apply Polkey principles to reduce compensation where employment would have lawfully ended within a specific timeframe regardless of the unlawful conduct.

Legal authorities cited

Chagger v Abbey National Plc [2010] ICR 397Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.13Equality Act 2010 s.15

Case details

Case number
3200096/2024
Decision date
30 January 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
construction
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No