Case 2401691/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Grey v Quest Medical UK Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2401691/2021
- Decision date
- 28 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cronshaw
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Grey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr B Grey was employed as a driver and, on 3 October 2020, collided with a metal post while manoeuvring a medical scanner in the respondent’s warehouse in Warrington. He reported the incident immediately, completed an accident report, accepted full responsibility from the outset, and apologised. The respondent suspended him, held a disciplinary hearing on 12 October 2020, dismissed him without notice for gross misconduct, and upheld that decision on appeal on 4 December 2020. He had 12 years’ continuous service and no previous disciplinary record.
The tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was the collision itself and rejected the suggestion that a consultation over drivers’ rotas had motivated the dismissal. It found the Burchell test satisfied: the respondent genuinely believed the claimant was guilty of misconduct, held that belief on reasonable grounds, and carried out a proper and adequate investigation. The dismissal still had to be assessed under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and by reference to the band of reasonable responses.
Applying that test, the tribunal held that it was not reasonable to categorise the incident as gross misconduct or to dismiss. It treated the event as a one-off accident or momentary lapse, noted that there was no evidence of distraction, speeding, injury, customer complaint, or reputational loss, and said the respondent had focused too heavily on the £22,000 damage rather than the nature of the act itself. It also considered the claimant’s immediate acceptance of responsibility, his remorse, and his unblemished record.
The unfair dismissal claim was therefore well-founded. On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £9,684 and a compensatory award of £400, with no further loss of earnings because the claimant obtained new employment on 23 November 2020 during the notice period. It allowed £400 for loss of statutory rights. The wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded because he was entitled to notice, and the tribunal awarded £6,876 for notice pay. The total award was £16,960.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the collision was an accident or momentary lapse, and it was not within the band of reasonable responses to treat it as gross misconduct. It awarded a basic award of £9,684 and a compensatory award of £400. | Upheld | — | £10,084 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held that summary dismissal was a breach of contract because the claimant was contractually entitled to notice. It awarded the notice pay by reference to a 12-week notice period and a gross weekly figure of £573. | Upheld | — | £6,876 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,960
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £9,684
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £400
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores v Burchell [1980] ICR 303
- Burchell test
- Taylor v OCS Group Limited [2006] ICR 1602
- Brito-Babapulle v Ealing Hospital NHS Trust [2013] IRLR 854
- Laws v London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers) Limited [1959] 1 WLR 698
- Neary & Neary v Dean of Westminster [1999] IRLR 288
- Trusthouse Forte (Catering) Limited v Adonis [1984] IRLR 382
- Paul v East Surrey District Health Authority [1995] IRLR 305
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.