Case 1808020/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Patterson v Lidl Great Britain Limited AT A HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 1808020/2023
- Decision date
- 3 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Patterson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed from his role as store manager after allegations that he failed to identify a culture of till sharing and colleague discount card misuse at the Heckmondwike store. The tribunal accepted that the respondent dismissed for a conduct-related reason, described by the respondent as gross negligence, and considered the claim under the conduct dismissal principles identified in the judgment.
The tribunal found that the respondent's conclusion about an existing culture of non-compliance was not reasonably supported by a fair reading of the employee statements. The statements described irregularities on occasions and in the past, and there was no reasonable finding as to what the claimant could or should have done to identify the alleged culture in the absence of actual knowledge.
The tribunal concluded that the decision to dismiss fell outside the band of reasonable responses. It also noted that any issue about whether the claimant might have been dismissed in any event was potentially a matter for remedy, which was adjourned.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. Remedy was adjourned to a date to be fixed, so no award figure is given. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 98(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson [1974] ICR 323
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell [1980] ICR 303
- range of reasonable responses
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.