Case 2601646/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Boulter Respondent Robert Pochin Limited v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2601646/2019
- Decision date
- 22 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr D Boulter Respondent Robert Pochin Limited
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Boulter had been employed since 6 September 2004 as a plumbing and heating sales representative. After a reorganisation of the sales department, the tribunal found that reports circulated that he was unhappy with the new reporting lines and spoke negatively about senior managers. The tribunal accepted that he sent a text from a business phone to customer CV Lane saying, "Are twit and twat still there or have they gone?" and that he initially denied sending it before admitting it when the wording was put to him. It also found that he used abusive or undermining language about managers and that he did not accept responsibility consistently during the process.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair on procedural grounds, but accepted that conduct was the reason for dismissal. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The notice pay claim failed because the tribunal found gross misconduct and held that summary dismissal without notice was justified. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- British Home Stores v Burchell
- s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Boys and Girls Welfare Society v McDonald
- West Midlands Co-operative Society Ltd v Tipton
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- Hadjioannou v Coral Casinos Ltd
- Paul v East Surrey District Health Authority
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- s.123(1) ERA 1996
- s.86 ERA 1996
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.