Case 2501446/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr K Allan v Recyke y’ Bike Ltd — 2020

Case reference: 2501446/2020
Decision date: 2 December 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Venue: Newcastle Hearing Centre

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr K Allan

Respondent

Recyke y’ Bike Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr Allan was dismissed on 2 May 2020 after he allowed Mr Adam Laing onto the respondent's premises on 24 April 2020 after hours, during the period when the respondent was operating Covid-related restrictions. The respondent relied on conduct, including alleged lone-working breaches, concerns about sanitising and gloves, alleged dishonesty, and the use of stock for Mr Laing's bike repair. The tribunal held that the principal reason for dismissal was conduct for the purposes of section 98(2) ERA 1996, but went on to assess fairness under section 98(4) ERA 1996.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the dismissal unfair under section 98 ERA 1996, but also found the claimant contributed to his dismissal and assessed contributory conduct at 50%. Remedy was reserved to a later hearing, so no award was quantified in this judgment.	Upheld	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	The judgment describes this as a claim for wrongful dismissal/breach of contract. The tribunal held that the respondent had not proved a fundamental breach by the claimant, and said compensation would be limited to contractual notice. No monetary figure was determined in this liability judgment.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

11 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.