Ingram Content Group UK Ltd

Case Summary

Mr Thornhill was dismissed on 13 January 2025 after three extended periods of sickness absence. He claimed unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The claim was dismissed after the claimant failed to comply with case management orders, submitted minimal evidence, and did not attend the hearing despite the judge's attempts to accommodate his request.

The claim was dismissed under rule 47 due to the claimant's non-compliance with case management orders (failure to provide disability impact statement, medical records, and particulars of discrimination claims by 14 November 2025), breach of unless orders, and his failure to attend the hearing without explanation despite being contacted by the judge who offered reasonable accommodations.

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

• •Unfair dismissal on grounds of long-term sickness absence
• •Disability discrimination
• •Arrears of pay and other payments
• •Claimant non-compliance with case management orders
• •Claimant failure to attend hearing

1 of 4 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr K Thornhill Respondent: Ingram Content Group UK Limited Heard at: Cambridge On: 10 April 2026 Before: Employment Judge Tynan (sitting alone) Appearances For the Claimant: Did not attend and was not represented For the Respondent: Mr G Graham, Counsel JUDGMENT The claim is dismissed pursuant to rule 47 of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. REASONS 1. The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a Production Team Lead. He commenced employment on 18 August 2021 and was dismissed on 13 January 2025 on grounds of alleged incapability (long term sickness). Following acas early conciliation the Claimant presented a claim to the employment tribunals on 18 May 2025. He claims that he was unfairly dismissed, discriminated against on the grounds of disability and that he is owed arrears of pay and other payments. 2. The claim is resisted by the Respondent. In its Grounds of Resistance, it notes that the Claimant had three extended periods of absence, namely from 29 June to 17 October 2023, 7 February to 15 April 2024, and 8 May 2024 to 13 January 2025 when he was dismissed. The Claimant claims that he remains unfit for work and in this regard has submitted copies of Fit Notes that certify him unfit for work through to 2 February this year. The fact that he has seemingly been unable to work for over a year since the Respondent dismissed him tends to support the Respondent’s decision to dismiss him for long term sickness absence or, if the decision to dismiss was procedurally unfair or tainted by discrimination, would at least be a potentially relevant consideration under the principles in Polkey and 2 of 4 Chagger when assessing whether he would or might have been dismissed in any event (Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8 and Chagger v Abbey National plc [20…