Mr R Evans v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham — 2020

The claimant, a council employee, attended a walking tour of Hammersmith Bridge in a personal capacity on a non-working day. The respondent dismissed him for gross misconduct after concluding that he had participated in a gathering on the bridge when, because of his knowledge of the bridge's repair and safety position, he should have known that the gathering posed safety risks.

The Tribunal accepted that the respondent's principal reason for dismissal related to conduct, but found that the respondent acted unreasonably. The claimant was not given proper particulars of the misconduct alleged against him before dismissal, was not given a fair opportunity to answer the allegation, and the respondent relied on matters that had not formed part of the investigated allegation.

The Tribunal found that there was no evidence before the dismissing officer that the weight of the group posed a safety risk because of the bridge's structural defects, or that any such risk had been communicated to the claimant. It also found that the respondent had not carried out as much investigation as was reasonable and had no reasonable grounds for the belief on which dismissal was based. For wrongful dismissal, the Tribunal found that the claimant's actions on the day did not amount to a repudiatory breach of contract.