Case 2216104/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Djamshid Rustambekov v Fieldfisher LLP — 2024
- Case reference
- 2216104/2024
- Decision date
- 23 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anthony REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Djamshid Rustambekov
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant claimed unfair dismissal after being dismissed for conduct-related reasons arising from incidents involving Colleague 1 in January 2023 and Colleague 2 in July 2023. The Tribunal recorded that remedy was not before it at the merits hearing.
The Tribunal found that the respondent did not follow a reasonably fair procedure in relation to the January 2023 incident, including by not interviewing Colleague 1 before a final decision, and did not have reasonable grounds for the belief of misconduct in relation to that incident. It also found that the respondent's treatment of the July 2023 incident was within the band of reasonable responses.
On sanction, the Tribunal found that no reasonable employer would have dismissed the claimant for a first offence of having his arm around a colleague instead of imposing another disciplinary sanction. It concluded that the respondent did not act reasonably in treating the reason for dismissal as sufficient, and the unfair dismissal claim succeeded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal expressly found the unfair dismissal claim well founded and stated that remedy would be dealt with at a separate hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- range of reasonable responses
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Trust Houses Forte Leisure Ltd v Aquilar
- British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift
- Gray Dunn & Co v Edwards
- Sharkey v Lloyds Bank plc
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.