Unfair Dismissal Claim Rejected Due to Capability Issues
📌 In brief
In this case, an employment tribunal found that the worker was fairly dismissed for not meeting job requirements. As a result, the worker's claim for unfair dismissal did not succeed.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer may fairly dismiss an employee due to a lack of capability.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant was dismissed for capability reasons, and their unfair dismissal claim fails.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Tribunal ruled that the claimant was fairly dismissed by their employer due to capability reasons, leading to a rejection of their unfair dismissal claim.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
Claim No: 3303812/2023
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant
Respondent Mr. T. [APPELLANT]
The London Borough of Islington
Heard at: Watford Employment Tribunal (via CVP)
On: 16, 17 and 18 February 2026 Before: Employment Judge Douse (Sitting alone) Appearances For the claimant: [redacted] For the respondent: [redacted]
JUDGMENT
1. The Claimant was fairly dismissed by reason of capability. 2. The Claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal therefore fails.
APPROVED BY: Employment Judge Douse
Date: 18 February 2026
Sent to the parties on:
18 April 2026
For the Tribunal Office
Case No: 3303812/2023
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted]
Heard at:
Watford
On: 12 November 2025
Before:
Employment Judge Dick
Representation Claimant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted]
JUDGMENT RULE 51
The application for reconsideration of the judgment of 25 April 2024, which dismissed various complaints upon withdrawal, is refused under rules 69 and 70(2). The application was made more than 14 days after the judgment was sent to the parties and it is not in the interests of justice to extend time. In any case, there is no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked.
Approved by:
Employment Judge Dick
12 November 2025
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON
.28 November 2025................................
.......................................... FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE
Case No: 3303812/2023
Notes Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. If written reasons are provided they will be placed online.
All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment- tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the [NAME]. If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here:
www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation- practice-directions/
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Claim Dismissed: No Attendance, Insufficient Service Period
- Employment Tribunal Home Office Wins Disability Discrimination Case at Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects All Discrimination Claims Against DVLA
- Employment Tribunal Claimant's Employment Claims Dismissed by Employment Judge Lancaster
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal: Claimants Not Found to Be Employees
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Dismisses Claims Due to Time Limit Issues
- Employment Tribunal Late Claims for Redundancy and Notice Payments Rejected by Employment Tribu…
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
❌ Tends to be rejected
- {'An employer may dismiss an employee if they do not meet the statutory definition of an employee under section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.': ''}
- {"A claimant's case is dismissed when complaints about redundancy and notice payments are not presented within the relevant time limit, making it unjust to extend this period.": ''}
- {"An employer does not need to make reasonable adjustments or avoid discriminatory practices if there is no evidence supporting the claimant's allegations of discrimination.": ''}
- {'A joint director and shareholder is not considered an employee under the Employment Rights Act 1996 for purposes such as claiming wages, redundancy, or other employment benefits.': ''}
- {'An employer may dismiss an employee without a fair reason or proper procedure if certain conditions are met, such as showing that there was no protected disclosure influencing their decision.': ''}
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, ruling that the dismissal was fair based on capability issues.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the dismissal of the claimant was fair due to capability issues.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the dismissal was fair because the employer provided sufficient evidence of capability issues.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were mentioned in the judgment.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the employer's presentation of evidence showing capability issues.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have strong evidence of capability issues if they want to defend a dismissal.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents that mattered.