Case 2406939/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Paul Stobart v Zen Internet Limited HELD AT: Manchester — 2024
- Case reference
- 2406939/2023
- Decision date
- 3 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Paul Stobart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Paul Stobart, was employed as Chief Executive of Zen Internet Limited from October 2018 and was dismissed on 23 March 2023, with termination taking effect on 31 March 2023. He brought a single complaint of unfair dismissal under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent relied on capability and/or some other substantial reason as the potentially fair reason for dismissal, citing the claimant's failure to achieve projected profitability targets during his tenure as CEO.
Employment Judge Johnson found that capability was correctly raised as the reason for dismissal, but that the respondent rendered the dismissal unfair by failing to follow a fair procedure. The respondent did not formally establish the facts, did not inform the claimant of the problem through a structured process, did not arrange meetings at which he could be accompanied and put his case, did not allow an opportunity to improve, and did not provide an appeal. The Tribunal noted that the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures applied regardless of the claimant's seniority.
Applying Polkey, the Tribunal concluded it was almost certain that a fair procedure would have resulted in a fair dismissal on capability grounds, and that such a dismissal would have occurred by no later than 31 May 2023. Contributory conduct under sections 122(2) and 123(6) ERA 1996 was considered but did not apply, as the case concerned capability rather than conduct. Remedy was adjourned to a separate one-day hearing in the Manchester Employment Tribunal.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissal found procedurally unfair (Polkey). Tribunal held the claimant would have been fairly dismissed by no later than 31 May 2023 had a fair procedure been followed. Remedy adjourned to a separate hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Part X Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Polkey
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- sections 122(2) and 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.