B Forrester Hayes v Scania (Great Britain) Ltd

B Forrester Hayes v Scania (Great Britain) Ltd

The claimant's dismissal for gross misconduct (threatening messages to a colleague) was fair and proportionate. Although the conduct arose in consequence of his ADHD, the respondent's aim of protecting staff was legitimate and dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving that aim. The investigation and process were reasonable, no direct discrimination or harassment was established, and no failure to make reasonable adjustments or breach of contract occurred.

Parties
Claimant: Mr B Forrester Hayes; Respondent: Scania (Great Britain) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
All claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Disability Discrimination, Harassment, Reasonable Adjustments, Breach of Contract, Gross Misconduct
Employment Law Discrimination Law Unfair Dismissal Disability Discrimination Harassment Reasonable Adjustments Breach of Contract Gross Misconduct

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr B Forrester Hayes

Claimant

Scania (Great Britain) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed under s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was discriminated against due to disability under Equality Act 2010 (direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, harassment, failure to make reasonable adjustments)
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was wrongfully dismissed (entitled to notice pay)

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's dismissal for gross misconduct (threatening messages to a colleague) was fair and proportionate. Although the conduct arose in consequence of his ADHD, the respondent's aim of protecting staff was legitimate and dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving that aim. The investigation and process were reasonable, no direct discrimination or harassment was established, and no failure to make reasonable adjustments or breach of contract occurred.

Court Disposition

All claims dismissed