Case 2600632/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Second Claimant: Mr S Lane Mr W Turner v E.On UK plc — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600632/2024
- Decision date
- 3 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smith Appearances
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Second Claimant: Mr S Lane Mr W Turner
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct, which was accepted to be a potentially fair reason under s.98(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996. The unfair dismissal claims succeeded because the Tribunal identified unfairness in the respondent's investigation and disciplinary or appeal process, including the way the investigation was approached and the handling of material relevant to appeal consideration.
The Tribunal also found that the claimants had engaged in culpable conduct connected with the events of 24 October 2023. It reduced the basic awards to nil and reduced any compensatory awards by 100% for contributory conduct, concluding that the claimants were not entitled to compensation.
The Tribunal considered Polkey in the alternative. It assessed a 20% chance that Mr Lane would have been reinstated on appeal and a 30% chance that Mr Turner would have been reinstated on appeal had the respondent acted fairly.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The reserved judgment states that both claimants' unfair dismissal claims were well-founded and succeeded, but that basic and compensatory awards were reduced to nil because of culpable conduct and contributory conduct. The prompt text is truncated in the middle. | Upheld | — | £0 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.98(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- balance of probabilities
- Polkey principle
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
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.