Case 1601026/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Hallet v Star Multifuels — 2022
- Case reference
- 1601026/2021
- Decision date
- 21 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Butcher Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Hallet
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Hallet worked for Star Multifuels as a fitter/mechanic from 19 October 2020 until he was summarily dismissed on 11 March 2021. The tribunal noted that he did not have the service needed to pursue an unfair dismissal claim, so the case was considered as a wrongful dismissal claim, with the central question being whether his conduct amounted to gross misconduct and a repudiatory breach of contract justifying dismissal without notice. The tribunal also considered the statutory issue of whether written terms and conditions of employment had been provided, and referred to the notice provisions in s.86 ERA, the authorities on wrongful dismissal, and s.38 Employment Act 2002.
On the dismissal issue, the tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that there had been a number of significant failures in maintenance and mechanical work during the claimant's employment, and that these had potential safety implications. It found, on the balance of probabilities, that the problems were not merely coincidental and that on 11 March 2021 the claimant had failed to complete the relevant paperwork and had treated the vehicle as ready to go. The tribunal accepted that, had the vehicle been released, there would have been a serious and significant risk to health and safety. It found that the claimant's actions were so remiss as to amount to gross misconduct and a fundamental breach of contract, so the respondent was entitled to dismiss him without notice and with immediate effect.
On the written terms point, the tribunal accepted Mr A Lacey's evidence that the claimant had been provided with terms and conditions of employment, although they had not been signed at the time. It held that, because the breach of contract claim failed, no compensation for failure to provide the statement of employment particulars could succeed in any event. The judgment therefore dismissed the claim in full and made no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim relating to alleged failure to provide written terms and conditions / written statement of employment particulars; the tribunal accepted Mr A Lacey's evidence that the documents were provided, and held that no compensation could succeed in any event because the breach of contract claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.86 ERA
- Johnson v Unisys Ltd
- Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Trust
- Laws v London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers Ltd)
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.