Mr Jugdeep Singh Johal v Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust — 2026

Mr Jugdeep Singh Johal withdrew his race discrimination claim on the first morning of the hearing, and that claim was dismissed. The Tribunal therefore determined only his claim under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust had unfairly dismissed him on 1 December 2023.

The Trust dismissed Mr Johal following an investigation into an allegation that he had used his position, influence and office to obtain personal gain from the Trust lease-car scheme or commercial partners through his use of demonstration vehicles. The Tribunal found that the vehicles had long been available to staff, their use was not addressed in the relevant policies, and Mr Johal used them openly with senior management's knowledge while awaiting a replacement salary-sacrifice vehicle. It found no evidence that he acted dishonestly, exerted undue influence, exploited his position, sought to enrich himself or obtained the vehicles for personal gain. It also found that he stopped using them as soon as the concern was raised.

The Tribunal found substantial defects in the disciplinary process. The investigating officer was junior to Mr Johal, reported to the case manager and did not meet the disciplinary policy's requirement for an impartial investigator of appropriate seniority. The investigation sought to validate misconduct rather than proceed even-handedly, the Trust did not follow its Just and Learning Framework, and the dismissing officer lacked contractual authority to dismiss Mr Johal. The Tribunal also found that the disciplinary decision was predetermined and that Mr Johal had been led by the Chief Executive to believe that the outcome would be overturned on appeal.

Applying section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Burchell principles and the range of reasonable responses test, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the Trust believed Mr Johal guilty of the allegation or had reasonable grounds for such a belief. The disciplinary panel had itself found that he did not seek to enrich himself or deliberately use his position for personal gain. Although the appeal panel reduced the characterisation from gross misconduct to misconduct of a serious nature, it upheld the dismissal; the Tribunal noted that the Trust's disciplinary procedure provided dismissal as a sanction only for gross misconduct. It unanimously upheld the unfair dismissal claim.

The Tribunal declined to make a Polkey reduction because it found that no reasonable employer conducting the relevant enquiries would have subjected Mr Johal to a disciplinary process or dismissed him for the alleged conduct. It also found that his conduct was not culpable or blameworthy and made no reduction for contributory conduct. No remedy was determined in this judgment; remedy was reserved for a hearing on 10 August 2026, so the salary and salary-sacrifice figures recorded in the reasons were not awards.