Case 2302238/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Papa M’Bow v Benhurst Court Limited Heard by CVP (London South Tribunal) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2302238/2019
- Decision date
- 14 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Papa M’Bow
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Papa M’Bow brought a claim of automatic unfair dismissal under s.100(1)(e) Employment Rights Act 1996 after his dismissal from Benhurst Court Limited on 5 April 2019. The tribunal noted that he had less than two years’ service, so ordinary unfair dismissal was not available, and the issue was whether he could bring himself within the health and safety exception in s.100(1)(e).
The tribunal found that the claimant was not in circumstances of serious and imminent danger, and that he did not reasonably believe he was. It also found that, even if there had been danger, headbutting Mr Raghbeer was not an appropriate step to protect himself or others, and there had been no attempt to communicate any such circumstances to the respondent before dismissal. The tribunal accepted the respondent’s evidence from Mr Raghbeer and Ms Byrne over the claimant’s account and found the investigation fair and reasonable.
The tribunal found that the dismissal was not because the claimant had taken or proposed to take protective steps, but because he had acted violently in the workplace. It also held that, even if the statutory danger requirement had been met, the claimant’s conduct was so negligent that a reasonable employer might have dismissed him. The claim was dismissed in full and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.100(1)(e) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.100(1)(e) ERA 1996
- s.100(2) ERA 1996
- s.100(3) ERA 1996
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.