Sandra Ashley v Walk the Walk Family Support Service Community

An employment tribunal will usually be entitled to determine a case by reference to an agreed list of issues. It has no general duty to invite a represented party to reformulate a disability-discrimination claim. Departure from the agreed list is exceptional and requires fundamental fairness to make intervention essential.

Under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, there is no invariable requirement for different managers to conduct investigation and disciplinary stages. Fairness is assessed across the end-to-end process. That assessment may include a genuinely available appeal which the employer facilitated, even if the employee did not pursue it to a hearing.

The claimant, formerly the respondent’s chief executive, was dismissed after allegations concerning management practices, staff treatment, records and financial matters. She brought complaints of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The Employment Tribunal dismissed all complaints.

On appeal, she challenged the dismissal of a complaint under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. She contended that the tribunal should have reformulated the agreed list of issues. She also challenged the fairness of her dismissal because the same directors were involved in investigation and dismissal. The central issues were whether the tribunal had to revisit the agreed list of issues, and whether it had permissibly assessed the overall fairness of the dismissal process.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal did not err in rejecting the section 15 complaint or in finding the dismissal fair.

2. A section 15 claim requires both that the unfavourable treatment was because of the identified “something” and that the “something” arose in consequence of disability. The tribunal found that dismissal was because of conduct matters, not incapacity, delayed return, or difficulty preparing for or attending meetings. That finding disposed of the complaint as it had been framed.

3. Applying Moustache, the tribunal was entitled to use the agreed list of issues. Proceedings are adversarial and a tribunal has no general duty proactively to prompt expansion or modification of a represented party’s case. Exceptional intervention is required only where fairness makes it essential. This was not such a case: the claimant had legal representation when the list was agreed and at the merits hearing, and no amendment was sought.

4. Section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 does not require separate managers for investigation and discipline in every misconduct case. The relevant question is the fairness of the end-to-end process. The tribunal’s concern about overlap in the directors’ roles was not a finding of an irregularity necessarily rendering dismissal unfair.

5. The tribunal could take account of the respondent’s conduct after dismissal. It offered an independent rehearing appeal, accepted an out-of-time appeal, and accommodated the claimant’s requested arrangements. No hearing occurred because she did not pursue the appeal. The tribunal was entitled to conclude that the overall process was fair.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal dismissed: [2025] EAT 144.
• Employment Tribunal: At a full merits hearing, all complaints of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination were dismissed. No citation is stated in the judgment.