Farm worker of 40 years dismissed by post while on sick leave: tribunal finds unfair dismissal and disability discrimination
A farm worker with 40 years' service was sent a P45 in the post while off sick with cauda equina syndrome. The tribunal found he was unfairly dismissed, discriminated against because of his disability, and awarded over £26,800.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant worked as a farm worker for the respondent from 1 June 1981 until 5 April 2022.
- On 7 January 2021 the claimant suffered an accident at work and subsequently developed cauda equina syndrome, a disability.
- The claimant was absent from work due to his disability and provided fit notes until 16 April 2022.
- On 5 April 2022 the claimant received a P45 in the post, which the tribunal found constituted an express dismissal.
- The respondent did not follow any procedure before dismissing the claimant and failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars.
- The claimant was awarded a basic award of £11,400, breach of contract damages of £3,926.52, a section 38 award of £1,520, and injury to feelings of £9,000 plus interest.
Timeline
-
Claimant started work
The claimant began working for the respondent's grandfather as a farm worker.
-
Accident at work
The claimant slipped and fell on ice, suffering an injury that led to cauda equina syndrome.
-
Hospital admission for spinal surgery
The claimant was admitted to hospital for emergency spinal surgery.
-
Discharge from hospital and start of sickness absence
The claimant was discharged and began a period of sickness absence, providing fit notes to the respondent.
-
Respondent wrote to claimant seeking medical records
Mr C. Spence wrote to the claimant requesting access to his medical records to assess his employability.
-
Claimant agreed to occupational health assessment
The claimant indicated he would attend a medical consultation at the respondent's cost, but the respondent did not pursue it.
-
Claimant received P45
The claimant received a P45 through the post with a termination date of 17 September 2021, which the tribunal found to be an express dismissal.
-
Claimant requested holiday pay
The claimant wrote to the respondent requesting outstanding holiday pay, which was subsequently paid.
-
Claimant presented tribunal claim
The claimant presented his claim to the employment tribunal.
-
Liability hearing
The tribunal heard evidence and found the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, wrongful dismissal, and failure to provide particulars were well-founded.
-
Remedy hearing
The tribunal determined the remedy, awarding the claimant £26,811.12 in total.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was dismissed when he received a P45 in the post, and if so, whether the dismissal was unfair, whether it amounted to discrimination arising from disability, and whether the claimant was entitled to damages for breach of contract and compensation for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars.
The outcome
The tribunal found in favour of the claimant on all complaints.
- The claimant was expressly dismissed when he received a P45 in the post on 5 April 2022.
- The respondent did not follow any procedure before dismissing the claimant, making the dismissal automatically unfair.
- The dismissal also amounted to discrimination arising from disability because it was unfavourable treatment caused by the claimant's sickness absence, which arose from his disability.
- The respondent failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars, triggering a separate award.
Compensation awarded:
- Basic award: £11,400
- Breach of contract (notice pay): £3,926.52
- Section 38 award (failure to provide particulars): £1,520
- Injury to feelings: £9,000
- Interest: £964.60
- Total: £26,811.12
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must follow a fair procedure before dismissing an employee, including consulting with them and considering reasonable adjustments, especially when the employee has a disability.
- Sending a P45 without any prior communication is likely to be seen as an express dismissal, not a resignation or administrative error.
- Long-serving employees (40 years in this case) are entitled to a higher basic award and greater procedural protections.
- Failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars can result in a separate award of up to four weeks' pay.
- Disability discrimination claims can succeed even if the employer did not intend to discriminate, if the unfavourable treatment arises from something connected to the disability.
What this case shows in practice
This case is a stark example of how not to handle a long-term sickness absence. The claimant had worked for the same farming partnership for 40 years before a workplace accident left him with cauda equina syndrome, a serious spinal condition. He provided fit notes throughout his absence and had even agreed to an occupational health assessment, but the employer never followed up. Instead, he received a P45 in the post with no warning, no meeting, and no explanation.
The tribunal found that this amounted to an express dismissal — the employer had terminated the claimant's employment without any process. Because the dismissal was triggered by the claimant's sickness absence, which itself arose from his disability, it also constituted discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.
What the employer could have done differently
The respondent's solicitor conceded that if there was a dismissal, it would be procedurally unfair. The employer's case was simply that no dismissal had occurred — a position the tribunal rejected. A fair process would have involved: consulting with the claimant about his condition and prognosis, obtaining up-to-date medical evidence, considering reasonable adjustments or alternative roles, and giving the claimant a chance to respond before any decision was made. None of that happened.
Why the result matters
This case reinforces that even small employers — here a family farming partnership — must follow basic employment law procedures. The fact that the claimant had 40 years' service made the lack of process even more egregious. The tribunal also highlighted that the employer knew about the claimant's disability and failed to make any adjustments. The total award of over £26,800 reflects the seriousness of the failures: a basic award for length of service, notice pay, compensation for injury to feelings, and a penalty for not providing written particulars. For employees in similar situations, this case shows that a P45 sent without consultation is not the end of the road — it can be challenged as an unfair dismissal and as disability discrimination.
Similar cases
DWP employee with ME dismissed unfairly after 17 years
A DWP employee with ME who worked reduced hours for years was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against. Tribunal awards £47,087.46 and recommends a positive reference.
Disabled engineer unfairly dismissed by Ministry of Defence after 12 years' service
A telecommunications engineer with physical and mental health disabilities was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against by the Ministry of Defence. The tribunal awarded £147,809.69 in total damages.
Bus driver with Crohn's disease awarded £25,000 after employer failed to provide suitable shifts
A bus driver with over 30 years' service was awarded £25,000 after his employer repeatedly allocated shifts that did not meet his disability-related needs, causing him to soil himself at work.
Meter reader with 16 years' service unfairly dismissed for ill health capability
A meter reader who was dismissed while on long-term sick leave after a motorbike accident has won his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claim. The tribunal found that Morrison Data Services Ltd failed to obtain an up-to-date occupational health report before deciding to dismiss.