Case 2305555/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Pond v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2021
- Case reference
- 2305555/2019
- Decision date
- 19 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Representation
- Venue
- via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Pond
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed after an incident with a prisoner on 26 April 2019. The respondent treated the matter as conduct and alleged that the force used by the claimant was excessive and not proportionate. The tribunal found that the investigation was reasonable, including the appointment of Governor Ardern as investigating officer, and that the relevant witnesses and CCTV evidence were considered.
The tribunal found that the respondent had a reasonable belief, on reasonable grounds, that the claimant was guilty of misconduct and that the conduct could reasonably be categorised as gross misconduct. It accepted that the respondent was entitled to take account of the claimant's long service and clean disciplinary record, but held that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses available to this respondent.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the tribunal found the dismissal fair under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The wrongful dismissal claim was also dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant's conduct amounted to a fundamental breach of contract and the respondent was entitled to dismiss without notice.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was for conduct and fell within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant's use of unnecessary force amounted to a fundamental breach of contract and the respondent was entitled to dismiss summarily. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Sainsbury's Supermarket Ltd v Hitt
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- Burchell test
- balance of probabilities
- repudiatory breach of contract
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.