Case 2501899/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr BW Passman v Beyond Housing Limited HELD AT: Teesside Justice Centre — 2026
- Case reference
- 2501899/2024
- Decision date
- 20 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Booth REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr BW Passman
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal and direct age discrimination. The direct age discrimination complaint was withdrawn at the commencement of the hearing and was dismissed on withdrawal.
The respondent relied on misconduct as the reason for dismissal, namely that the claimant accessed a colleague's laptop without permission and showed a colleague how to access another employee's laptop without permission. The claimant admitted the misconduct, and the Tribunal found that the respondent carried out a reasonable investigation and followed a fair and reasonable procedure.
The Tribunal found that it was reasonable for the respondent to categorise the conduct as gross misconduct and to conclude that trust and confidence had been broken. It concluded that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses and that the claimant was fairly dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and did not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The claimant withdrew the complaint of direct age discrimination at the commencement of the hearing, and it was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- ACAS Code of Practice for Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
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.