Case 1602799/2023 · Employment Tribunal
FOR THE v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 1602799/2023
- Decision date
- 2 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
1 namedClaimant
FOR THE
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the dismissal of the First Claimant for alleged gross misconduct arising from events on 2 June 2023. It recorded that there was no wrongful dismissal complaint and made no findings on the innocence or guilt of the claimant, focusing instead on whether the respondent's belief and process met the unfair dismissal test.
The tribunal found that the respondent's belief as to the First Claimant's conduct was not held on reasonable grounds and that the disciplinary and appeal procedures were flawed. It identified problems including the sequential approach to related cases, inadequate reasons at the disciplinary and appeal stages, and unresolved issues about actual or perceived impartiality.
The claim of unfair dismissal by the First Claimant was made out and succeeded. A further hearing was to be arranged to determine remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the First Claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal is made out and succeeds. Remedy was deferred to a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- Section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Post Office v Foley
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets v Hitt
- Boys and Girls Welfare Society v Macdonald
- Singh v DHL Services Ltd
- A v B
- band of reasonable responses
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- West Midlands Co-operative Society v Tipton
- Section 207(2) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures
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.