Dismissed during long-term sick leave: relying on an outdated medical report was unfair
A senior vehicle engineer with 16 years' service was unfairly dismissed after his employer relied on a stale medical report. The tribunal awarded £12,473.64 but found he would have been fairly dismissed 7 weeks later.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a senior vehicle engineer from July 2005 until dismissal on 22 December 2021.
- He fell at work on 22 September 2021, reporting an uneven surface that could endanger others.
- He was absent sick from 23 September 2021 and never returned before dismissal.
- The respondent dismissed him based on capability due to long-term sickness absence.
- The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair but that he would have been fairly dismissed 7 weeks later.
- The claimant's protected disclosure claim failed for lack of causal link.
Timeline
-
Workplace accident
Claimant fell on uneven surface at vehicle entrance, reported to manager Mr Pitt.
-
Sickness absence begins
Claimant absent from work due to injury, never returned before dismissal.
-
Report to Mr Margrave
Claimant attended to complete accident investigation form, reported uneven surface.
-
First sickness absence meeting
First meeting under respondent's long-term sickness policy.
-
Second sickness absence meeting
Claimant told an appointment with company doctor would be arranged; signed consent form.
-
Chiropractor treatment starts
Claimant began six-session chiropractor treatment.
-
Occupational health referral
Mr Margrave referred claimant to OH; Dr Hughes relied on chiropractor's letter.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed on capability grounds at third sickness absence meeting.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal not upheld; claimant gave no return-to-work date.
-
Tribunal judgment
Unfair dismissal found; compensation awarded of £12,473.64.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for long-term sickness was fair, and if not, what compensation was due. It also considered whether the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures about an uneven surface that caused his fall.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the employer did not obtain an up-to-date medical report before deciding to dismiss. However, it also found that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed 7 weeks later, so compensation was limited to that period.
- Basic award: £8,704.00
- Compensatory award: £3,769.64 (7 weeks' loss of sick pay and pension contributions)
- Total: £12,473.64
- Polkey reduction: 100% (dismissal would have occurred 7 weeks later)
- No contributory fault
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should always obtain an up-to-date medical report before dismissing on capability grounds, especially if the employee is willing to attend an appointment.
- A procedural failure can make a dismissal unfair even if the employer had a genuine belief that the employee was no longer capable of doing the job.
- Making a protected disclosure about a health and safety issue does not automatically protect you from a capability dismissal if there is no causal link between the disclosure and the dismissal.
- Long-serving employees are entitled to a thorough process, but a tribunal may still find that dismissal would have been fair if the employer had followed proper procedures.
What this case shows in practice
A senior vehicle engineer with 16 years' service fell at work on an uneven surface and reported the hazard to his managers. He never returned to work. After three sickness absence meetings, the employer dismissed him on capability grounds, relying on an occupational health report that was six weeks old. The tribunal found this was procedurally unfair because the employer had not obtained an up-to-date medical opinion, despite the employee signing a consent form for a company doctor appointment.
What the losing side could have done differently
The employer could have waited for the company doctor appointment rather than proceeding with dismissal based on stale evidence. The tribunal noted that the employee was willing to attend and had started chiropractor treatment. A more thorough investigation might have shown that the employee's condition was improving, or at least given the employer a firmer basis for its decision.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that procedural fairness is not just a box-ticking exercise. Even where an employer genuinely believes an employee is incapable of returning to work, failing to consider up-to-date medical evidence can render a dismissal unfair. However, the Polkey reduction to nil compensation after 7 weeks shows that tribunals will still assess what would have happened if proper procedures had been followed. The claimant's whistleblowing claim failed because there was no evidence that the disclosure about the uneven surface influenced the dismissal decision — the employer's concern was solely about his long-term absence.
Similar cases
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.
Procurement director's constructive dismissal claim over whistleblowing and disability fails
A procurement director who resigned after raising concerns about commission on expired contracts has lost her tribunal claims for constructive unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment and disability discrimination.
Train driver dismissed while medical evidence said he could return: a capability case that failed to consult
A London Underground train driver with five years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against after being sacked for long-term sickness despite occupational health and a specialist both saying he could return with adjustments.
Live-in carer dismissed for long-term sickness: whistleblowing claim fails
A live-in carer with six years' service was fairly dismissed for long-term incapacity, the tribunal found. Her claims of whistleblowing and victimisation were dismissed.