Case 2501523/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Gerard Hogg v DHL Services Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2501523/2020
- Decision date
- 23 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A.M.S. Green
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Gerard Hogg
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was summarily dismissed after moving an HGV while it was being loaded by a forklift truck, resulting in a collision and damage to client stock. The tribunal found that the respondent investigated the incident, held a disciplinary hearing, and upheld allegations that the claimant failed to check load security, failed to check mirrors and blind spots before moving off, and failed to follow the Smiths Keys system.
For unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct and rejected the claimant's suggestion that the dismissal was linked to an earlier overtime disagreement. It found that the dismissing officer had an honest belief, based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and that the claimant had admitted serious breaches of health and safety rules and procedures.
The tribunal held that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses, taking account of the respondent's disciplinary policy, the seriousness of the incident, the potential for injury, the respondent's client and safety concerns, the claimant's mitigation, and the differences between the claimant's role and those of the other employees involved. For wrongful dismissal, it found that the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct, so the respondent was entitled to dismiss without notice.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was conduct, a potentially fair reason, and that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses under section 98(4) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to 12 weeks' notice but was not paid notice because he was guilty of gross misconduct and the respondent was entitled to dismiss without notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
26 references- sections 98(1) and (2) ERA 1996
- section 98(4) ERA 1996
- band of reasonable responses
- British Home Stores Limited v Burchell
- SSE v Innes
- CRO Ports London Ltd v Wiltshire
- Wilson v Racher
- ACAS Code on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- ACAS Guide: Discipline and Grievances at Work
- Brito-Babapulle v Ealing Hospital NHS Trust
- AEI Cables Ltd v McLay
- London Borough of Harrow v Cunningham
- Post Office v Fennell
- Hadijioanno v Coral Casinos Ltd
- Trust Houses Forte Leisure Ltd v Aquilar
- British Leyland v Swift
- Securicor Ltd v Smith
- Trusthouse Forte (Catering) Ltd v Adonis
- Roldan v Royal Salford NHS Foundation Trust
- Monji v Boots Management Services Ltd
- Connolly v Western Health and Social Care Trust
- Newbound v Thames Water Utilities Ltd
- Laws v London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers) Ltd
- Shaw v B and W Group Ltd
- Briscoe v Lubrizol Ltd
- Neary v Dean of Westminster
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.