James Hare Ltd and Ms S Hare

Case Summary

In this family business dispute, the first claimant (Mr Charles Hare) claimed unfair dismissal and other breaches following his removal as director and employee by his cousin (Ms Saffron Hare). The tribunal found the first claimant was unfairly dismissed and had been denied written particulars of employment, but dismissed his disability discrimination and unlawful deduction claims. The second claimant (Mrs Bianca Hare) failed in all her claims, with the tribunal finding she was not an employee. Remedy is to be determined at a separate hearing.

The tribunal found that the first claimant was dismissed when the company's director initiated a process to remove him as director and employee, even though his initial claims questioned the authority to dismiss. The dismissal was found to be procedurally unfair. The disability discrimination claims failed because the tribunal did not find the relevant causal connection between the claimant's disabilities and the dismissal decision. The second claimant was found not to be an employee based on lack of mutuality of obligation and the nature of any payments made to her.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Whether dismissal of first claimant occurred and was procedurally fair
• •Disability discrimination claims based on anxiety, depression, ADHD and trigeminal neuralgia
• •Unlawful deduction from wages claims
• •Failure to provide written particulars of employment
• •Employment status and mutuality of obligation for second claimant
• •Authority of director to dismiss director-level employee

& 1804327/2023 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Charles Hare (1) Mrs Bianca Hare (2) Respondent: James Hare Limited (1) Ms Saffron Hare (2) Heard at: Leeds Employment Tribunal On: 23 rd -30 th April 2025 19 th May 2025 (panel in chambers) 23 rd July 2025 Before: Employment Judge Singh Ms J Hiser (non-legal member) Mr J Rhodes (non-legal member) Representation Claimant: Mr J Crozier (of Counsel) Respondent: Mr N Smith (of Counsel) JUDGMENT 1. The First Claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal is well-founded and succeeds 2. The First Claimant’s claim for failure to provide written particulars of employment is well-founded and succeeds. 3. The First Claimant’s claims for disability discrimination are not well- founded and are dismissed. 4. The First Claimant’s claims for unlawful deduction from wages are not well-founded and are dismissed. 5. The Second Claimant’s claims for unfair dismissal are not well-founded and are dismissed. 6. The Second Claimant’s claim for discrimination on the grounds of marital status and not well-founded and are dismissed. & 1804327/2023 7. The Second Claimant’s claim for failure to provide written particulars of employment is not well-founded and is dismissed. 8. There will be a separate remedy hearing to determine the damages payable to the First Claimant. REASONS Background to request for written reasons 1. The original judgment was delivered orally at the hearing on the 23 rd July 2025. A short form judgment was sent out on that day. Neither party requested full written reasons within the time frame set out in the rule 60 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. 2. A remedy hearing was due to ta…