Case 2401061/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Paul McNabb v Denholm Logistics UK Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2401061/2021
- Decision date
- 15 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Paul McNabb
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr McNabb had been employed by Denholm UK Logistics Limited since 11 May 2005 and was working as a warehouse team leader. The tribunal found that the respondent had circulated Covid-19 guidance on 7 August 2020, including a warning that employees who should self-isolate and appeared on site could be summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. It found that the claimant had access to the guidance and was responsible for checking the self-isolation position after foreign travel.
The claimant travelled to Dubai on 17 August 2020 and returned to work on 1 September 2020 without isolating. He worked on site until he was told to go home on 3 September 2020 after testing positive for Covid-19. The respondent investigated, invited him to disciplinary meetings, held a disciplinary hearing on 15 October 2020, and dismissed him by letter dated 16 October 2020. The appeal was heard on 2 November 2020 and rejected by letter dated 3 November 2020.
Applying sections 98(1), 98(2) and 98(4) ERA 1996 and the Polkey, Birchell and related authorities, the tribunal held that the principal reason for dismissal was conduct, that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct, and that belief was based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation. It rejected the submission that the respondent was looking for a way to get rid of him, and it found no proven inconsistency with other disciplinary cases. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.
On the notice-pay issue, the tribunal held separately that the claimant's conduct amounted to repudiation of the contract and gross negligence, so the respondent was entitled to dismiss without notice. It rejected the argument that the respondent had to show a loss of trust and confidence before succeeding on wrongful dismissal. The holiday pay complaint was not pursued and was dismissed on withdrawal. No award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay complaint was not proceeded with and the judgment records it as dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The notice pay claim failed because the tribunal found the claimant's return to work without self-isolating after Dubai amounted to repudiatory breach/gross negligence, entitling the respondent to dismiss without notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.98(1) and (2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Polkey
- British Home Stores Ltd v Birchell
- Post Office v Foley
- J Sainsbury v Hitt
- British Leyland v Swift
- band of reasonable responses
- objective repudiatory breach
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.