Mr I Kendell v Maritime Transport Limited — 2023

At the public preliminary hearing on 23 October 2023, the tribunal considered the respondent's application to strike out Mr Kendell's sole claim of unfair dismissal. The claimant said he had raised the need for flexibility because of difficulties in his home life and his wife's medical condition, and suggested that his dismissal followed that request. The respondent said the dismissal was for conduct: a member of the public complaint, vehicle tracking, in-vehicle camera footage and the claimant's own comments showed that he had mounted his mobile phone on the dashboard of his LGV and appeared to be watching YouTube music videos while driving.

The tribunal noted that the complaint from the public pre-dated the claimant's request for time off and held that the suggestion of a retaliatory motive was speculative. It also found that the dismissal letter showed the claimant had not been dismissed because the video from 4 April 2023 matched the precise moment of the complaint, but because he was seen watching videos whilst driving. Having considered the videos, the judge said the 4 April footage showed a video playing on the phone in the dashboard in front of the driver, with the claimant altering the angle of the phone to his line of sight, and that a further video from 6 April 2023 also supported the respondent's case.

Applying Rule 37(1)(b), s.98(4) ERA 1996, Burchell and the band of reasonable responses approach, the tribunal concluded that the respondent was likely to establish a genuine belief on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, including review of vehicle tracking, driver records and camera evidence. The judge took account of the claimant's 10 years' service but concluded that dismissal was likely to fall within the range of reasonable responses because of the safety implications of driving an LGV with distractions in front of the driver. The claim was therefore struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success.