Case 2302845/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Lynch v ICTS (UK) Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2302845/2019
- Decision date
- 9 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Representation
- Venue
- Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Lynch
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a Security Officer, was dismissed following an incident on 18 April 2019 when a fire alarm was activated at the American Express site. The tribunal found that he prevented staff from leaving the building for eight minutes while believing, or assuming, that the alarm was false and awaiting further direction. The tribunal noted that the claimant's good faith was not doubted.
The tribunal held that the claimant had not shown circumstances of danger which he reasonably believed to be serious and imminent. It found that if the claimant had reasonably believed the alarm itself created serious and imminent danger, he would logically have allowed staff to evacuate rather than holding them in reception.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant was dismissed for failing to follow the respondent's procedure when an alarm was activated, not for taking appropriate steps to protect himself or others. The s.100(1)(e) ERA 1996 automatic unfair dismissal claim therefore failed and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim was for automatic unfair dismissal on health and safety grounds under s.100(1)(e) Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.100(1)(e) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.100(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.100(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Oudahar v Esporta Group Ltd UKEAT/0566/10/DA
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.