Case 1400550/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Roud v Llexeter Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400550/2021
- Decision date
- 27 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Matthews Representation
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Roud
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Roud worked for Llexeter Ltd from 7 October 2015 and was summarily dismissed with effect from 9 November 2020. The tribunal recorded a 2019 disciplinary process about his attitude and later complaints in October 2020 from colleagues alleging swearing, aggression, intimidation and threatening remarks, including repeated references to "I'll break your legs". It also recorded evidence that some workplace relationships were strained and that at least one such phrase had been used jokingly in an email, but it did not accept Mr Roud's case that he had in substance been made redundant.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the dismissal was for conduct and that Mr Squire and Mr Xu genuinely believed the allegations. It nevertheless held that the procedure was unfair because there had been no investigatory meeting with Mr Roud and the same person handled both the investigation and the disciplinary hearing, contrary to the ACAS Code. The appeal did not cure those defects. The tribunal applied section 98(4) ERA 1996, the Burchell approach and the band of reasonable responses analysis, and found that there was a 75% chance that a fair process would still have led to dismissal.
The tribunal found that Mr Roud had contributed to his dismissal to the extent of 50%, and it reduced both the basic award and the compensatory award on that basis. It also applied a 25% uplift under section 207A TULRCA because of the unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code. The unfair dismissal award was £2,668.33 in total, made up of a basic award of £2,017.50 and a compensatory award of £650.83.
The wrongful dismissal claim succeeded because the tribunal was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Roud's conduct amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract. It awarded £4,303.20 in lieu of notice under the contract, with no deduction for tax. The redundancy payment claim was dismissed. The total sum ordered to be paid was £6,971.53, and the tribunal noted that Mr Roud had obtained lower-paid work with Morrisons on 23 February 2021, which limited the period for loss of earnings.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recoupment regulations applied; prescribed element £588.33 for 9 November 2020 to 22 February 2021. | Upheld | — | £2,668 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Eight weeks' notice pay awarded; no deduction was to be made for tax. | Upheld | — | £4,303 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal rejected the suggestion that the dismissal was a redundancy; the evidence about Mr Anderson did not support that case. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,972
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,018
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £651
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- band of reasonable responses
- Polkey reduction
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- s.207A TULRCA
- ACAS Code of Practice 1 (2015)
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.