Case 2500411/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Sharpe v Sepco International Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500411/2023
- Decision date
- 3 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Newburn Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Sharpe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr Sharpe did not resign on 20 December 2022. It accepted that he was angry and upset during the exchange about his afternoon route, and found that any words or conduct suggesting resignation were spoken in the heat of the moment. The tribunal applied Kwik-Fit v Lineham and found there were special circumstances, so it was not reasonable for Sepco International Limited to treat the matter as a clear resignation. Mr Sharpe was therefore dismissed.
On the reason for dismissal, the tribunal found that Mr Lavasani held a genuine belief that Mr Sharpe had committed the conduct alleged and that this belief was based on the incident reports from Mr Brown, Mr Garbutt and Mr Kassim. It accepted that the dismissal was for conduct and that Mr Lavasani acted within the band of reasonable responses in treating that conduct as capable of justifying dismissal. However, the tribunal found the dismissal procedure was not fair.
The tribunal's procedural findings were that Sepco did not invite Mr Sharpe to a formal disciplinary hearing, did not provide him in advance with the incident reports on which dismissal was based, and did not allow him a fair opportunity to answer the case before dismissal. The appeal hearing did not cure those defects because Mr Lavasani only read selected excerpts of the reports to Mr Sharpe during the appeal, rather than giving him the evidence in advance. The tribunal found this was not compliant with the ACAS Code and was outside the band of reasonable responses.
On remedy-related issues, the tribunal made provisional findings only. It assessed Polkey at 80% in the sense that it considered there was an 80% chance Mr Sharpe would still have been dismissed even if a fair procedure had been followed. It also found contributory conduct and said it would be just to reduce any basic and compensatory award by 75%, but no final monetary award was determined because a separate remedy hearing was to be listed if the parties could not agree settlement.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability only. The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed rather than having resigned, and listed a remedy hearing to determine any award. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Kwik-Fit v Lineham
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Iceland Frozen Foods band of reasonable responses
- Spink v Express Foods Ltd
- Taylor v OCS Group Ltd
- ACAS Code
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- Nelson v BBC (No. 2)
- Steen v ASP Packaging Ltd
- s.207A TULR(C)A 1992
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.