Case 2300987/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Perera, Legal Assistant For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2300987/2018
- Decision date
- 9 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Andrews Date
- Panel members
- Ms Y Batchelor
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr K Perera, Legal Assistant For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed for conduct and that this was a potentially fair reason under the Employment Rights Act 1996. It accepted that Mr Lally and Ms Murphy genuinely believed the claimant had committed the misconduct alleged in relation to donated items from Sainsbury’s, and that they had reasonable grounds for that belief after a disciplinary investigation carried out by Ms Duke. The tribunal relied in particular on the combination of the Sainsbury’s concern about suspicious items, the claimant’s omission of chewing gum and pens from the list he produced, and the tribunal’s view that Mr Lally’s reasoning about the improbability of the claimant’s account was sound.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
15 references- section 94 ERA 1996
- section 98(1) and (2) ERA 1996
- section 98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- Post Office v Foley
- Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones
- Graham v S of S for Work & Pensions
- Sainsbury’s Supermarkets v Hitt
- OCS Group Ltd v Taylor
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 23 Equality Act 2010
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Shamoon v Chief Constable RUC
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.