Case 1302747/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Stuart White v ABS Installations Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1302747/2023
- Decision date
- 14 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hallen
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Stuart White
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Stuart White was employed by ABS Installations Limited as an installation engineer from 1 August 2017 until his dismissal on 30 January 2023. The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was serious or gross misconduct. The central allegations were that on 7 October 2022, 24 October 2022 and 16 November 2022 he used the company fuel card to buy fuel for his own vehicle rather than the company van, and that he had also misled his manager about work said to have been completed on 1 December 2022. The tribunal accepted the Respondent's evidence that the van tracker data, clocking records and fuel receipts aligned with the allegation that the card had been used when the company van was on site and after Mr White had clocked off.
The tribunal rejected Mr White's contention that he could not have bought fuel for his own vehicle within the short time periods shown by the evidence. It accepted the Respondent's explanation that the Shell garage was close to the site and that, on the final occasion, Mr Jones had seen CCTV footage showing Mr White fuelling his own BMW diesel vehicle. The tribunal found that the Respondent genuinely believed Mr White had misused the fuel card and that the belief was based on a reasonable investigation.
Applying section 98(1) and section 98(4) ERA 1996, together with the Burchell approach and the band of reasonable responses test, the tribunal held that the dismissal was fair. It noted that the Respondent had commissioned an external consultant to investigate, provided the evidence to Mr White in advance, held a disciplinary hearing before another external consultant, and offered an appeal which Mr White did not pursue. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed and no monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Iceland Frozen Foods band of reasonable responses
- Sainsburys Supermarket Ltd v Hitt
- London Ambulance NHS Trust v Small
- Burchell test
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.