Case 2400058/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Norton v Leven Consultants Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2400058/2020
- Decision date
- 28 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Norton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Norton was employed by Leven Consultants Ltd as a salesperson and was dismissed on 10 September 2019 after a disciplinary process concerning the deletion of at least 138 sent emails on 29 August 2019. The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed him for misconduct: Mr Rowland genuinely believed, on reasonable grounds, that Mr Norton had deleted the emails and had then lied about doing so. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence from the timeline, CCTV stills and system logs, and found on the balance of probabilities that Mr Norton himself deleted the emails on 29 August 2019.
Although the tribunal found a reasonable investigation had been carried out in the circumstances and that the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses, it held that the dismissal was nevertheless unfair because the process was predetermined. It found that Mr Rowland had made up his mind before the disciplinary hearing, that Mr Bellamy had predetermined the appeal before the appeal hearing, and that Mr Bellamy had held unrecorded conversations with the investigator and decision maker before the appeal without informing Mr Norton. The tribunal also treated Ms Stone's overlapping roles as witness, part investigator, assistant to the decision maker and author of the dismissal letter as an additional factor supporting unfairness.
On remedy-related issues, the tribunal found that Mr Norton's conduct was culpable and blameworthy and that it caused his dismissal, so both the basic award and compensatory award would in any event have been reduced by 100%. It also found that, applying Polkey, there was a 66% chance that he would have been fairly dismissed even if a fair procedure had been followed. However, because of the 100% contributory reduction, it concluded that he was not entitled to any remedy. The separate breach of contract claim failed because the tribunal found that the respondent was entitled to dismiss without notice in light of the claimant's own gross misconduct.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed, but also found that he had deleted the emails and lied about it during the internal process. It held that the dismissal decision and the appeal were unfair because both stages were predetermined and the appeal process was not fair and transparent. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal rejected the notice-pay claim because it found the claimant had himself fundamentally breached the contract of employment and that dismissal without notice was not a breach by the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
9 references- British Home Stores v Burchell
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Polkey
- Hill v Governing Body of Great Tey Primary School
- Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews
- section 122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- 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.