Case 2300863/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Lesley Collins v Shaw Healthcare Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 2300863/2025
- Decision date
- 2 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Da Costa
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Lesley Collins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Lesley Collins worked for Shaw Healthcare Limited at Hillside Lodge from August 2019 and was dismissed on 23 October 2024 for gross misconduct after an anonymous email sent on 27 September 2024 alleged that staff were sleeping on duty and attached photographs said to show them asleep. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was one of the people shown in the photographs and that the respondent investigated four staff members, two of whom resigned and two of whom were dismissed.
The tribunal found that the respondent had a potentially fair reason for dismissal, namely conduct, and that the decision-makers genuinely believed the claimant had either slept on duty or rested her eyes in breach of the night policy. It found the policy clearly prohibited sleeping on duty and also treated resting with eyes closed as misconduct. On the evidence, the tribunal concluded it was more likely than not that the claimant was either sleeping or resting with her eyes closed for more than a few seconds, and that a conclusion of breach of policy was rationally arguable.
The tribunal accepted that there were some defects in the process: the claimant was not given the anonymous email, the respondent did not pursue every possible line of enquiry, and it did not speak to certain people the claimant named. It also found a clear breach of the Acas Code because the claimant’s companion, Ms Sutherland, was not properly told that she could address the disciplinary and appeal hearings to put and sum up the claimant’s case and respond on her behalf. However, the tribunal held that these deficiencies did not fatally compromise fairness and did not take the respondent outside the band of reasonable responses.
The appeal was dismissed and the tribunal concluded that dismissal for gross misconduct was within the range of reasonable responses in the circumstances. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore not well founded and was dismissed in full, with no monetary award made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed after the tribunal found a potentially fair reason based on conduct, a genuine belief in misconduct, and that the investigation, dismissal and appeal remained within the band of reasonable responses despite some procedural deficiencies and an Acas Code breach. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Burchell criteria
- band of reasonable responses
- Iceland Frozen Foods
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small
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.