Case 2401927/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Lambert v McBurney Transport Group Limited HELD AT: Manchester — 2024
- Case reference
- 2401927/2024
- Decision date
- 20 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Lambert
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant alleged that he was unfairly dismissed. The respondent said he was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct arising from events on 17 November 2023, including alleged breaches of company policies, site rules, insubordination, failure to carry out a lawful task, costs to the company, and damage to profitability.
The Tribunal found that there were shortcomings in the respondent's process, including poor communication, delay, short-notice cancellation of meetings, and the absence of some transcripts or notes that would have been good practice to provide. However, it found that the claimant was given sufficient information about the allegations, had the opportunity to appeal, and that the appeal was conducted appropriately.
The Tribunal concluded that, given the strength of the evidence against the claimant, his admissions to much of the conduct, and his refusal until late in the hearing to acknowledge wrongdoing, the procedural flaws did not undermine the fairness of the decision to dismiss for gross misconduct. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The supplied PDF text is truncated, but the judgment expressly states that the unfair dismissal claim fails and is dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- band of reasonable responses
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.