Case 1600042/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Harrison v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600042/2023
- Decision date
- 16 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Brace Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Harrison
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after the respondent concluded that she had intentionally failed to scan and pay for items while using Scan As You Shop at the store where she worked. The tribunal accepted that conduct was the reason for dismissal and that it was a potentially fair reason under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that the respondent carried out a reasonable investigation. The claimant was shown CCTV footage and receipts at the investigation and disciplinary stages, had opportunities to respond, and successfully challenged some allegations, including the 14 November allegation and an issue concerning paracetamol, which were not relied on in the dismissal decision. The tribunal did not accept that the claimant had been treated unfairly by not being stopped as a customer before leaving the store, or that the CCTV footage had changed between the investigation and disciplinary hearing.
The tribunal concluded that the dismissing manager had reasonable grounds for a genuine belief that the claimant had intentionally failed to pay for goods, based on the CCTV evidence, receipts, the number and regularity of missed items, and the claimant's lack of a credible explanation. It found that the procedure was reasonable and that dismissal for this conduct, despite the claimant's length of service and clean disciplinary record, was within the range of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim was not well founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
19 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.95 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Burchell test
- Post Office v Foley
- Taylor v OCS Group Ltd
- range of reasonable responses
- Iceland Frozen Foods Limited v Jones
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited v Hitt
- London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews
- W Devis & Sons Ltd v Atkins
- Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Wardle
- s.122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.