R1 and R2

Case No: 2201337/2023 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: AB Respondents: (1) R1 (2) R2 Heard at: London Central (in person) On: 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31 January 2025 13, 27 January, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 February 2025 (in chambers) Before: Employment Judge B Smith (sitting with members) Tribunal Member Marshall Tribunal Member Darmas Representation Claimant: Ms Laura Redman (Counsel) Respondent: Ms Diya Sen Gupta (King’s Counsel) Ms Kate Balmer (Counsel) RESERVED JUDGMENT The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: 1. The complaint of protected disclosure detriment contrary to section 47B(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘ERA’) is not well-founded and is dismissed. 2. The complaint of automatic unfair dismissal contrary to section 103A ERA is not well-founded and is dismissed. 3. The complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal contrary to section 98 ERA is not well-founded and is dismissed. 4. The complaint of direct discrimination on grounds of disability contrary to section 13 Equality Act 2010 (‘EQA’) is not well-founded and is dismissed. 5. The complaint of discrimination arising in consequence of disability contrary to section 15 EQA is not well-founded and is dismissed. Case No: 2201337/2023 2 REASONS Introduction 1. Privacy orders (by EJ Nicole dated 5 March 2024) made under rule 50 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 apply to this Reserved Judgement and Reasons (final hearing bundle page 3726; hereafter only referred to as ‘p’ unless otherwise stated). Further privacy orders (by EJ B Smith dated 16 July 2025) were also made in order to give effect to EJ Nicolle’s privacy orders. 2. The claimant was employed latterly with as a JOB2 at the first respondent between January 2013 and his summary dismissal on 14 September 2022. The ...