Case 2602074/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Deen v Derby Homes Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2602074/2023
- Decision date
- 23 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Deen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint at a second preliminary hearing. The claimant attended the first hearing on 20 June 2024 with support from his cousin and an interpreter, but did not attend the resumed hearing on 12 August 2024. He had sought a postponement on medical grounds, but no medical evidence was provided and the application was refused, so the tribunal proceeded in his absence.
The respondent relied on dismissal for gross misconduct on 26 May 2023. The tribunal recorded four allegations: unauthorised leave to Bangladesh, allowing family members into restricted areas of Milestone House, allowing them to access the CCTV system, and taking unauthorised breaks while inaccurately recording working time. It also noted a further concern that the claimant had left a cleaning trolley unsupervised for two hours with dangerous chemicals. The tribunal referred to the claimant’s disciplinary meeting on 25 May 2023, where he had a translator and union representative, and noted admissions recorded in the minutes, including that he had brought family into a restricted area and that his conduct around the CCTV was a mistake.
In assessing strike out, the tribunal applied Rule 37(1)(a) and the Burchell test. It considered the investigation materials, including the investigation report, witness statements, WhatsApp messages, key fob data, and the disciplinary and appeal correspondence. It found the respondent had an honest belief based on reasonable grounds and had carried out as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances. The tribunal also relied on the claimant’s letter of 19 June 2023, in which he said his performance was not as it should have been, and noted that the respondent had appeared to meet its obligations under the ACAS code.
The tribunal concluded that the unfair dismissal claim had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out. It did not determine or make any award on the other listed categories in this judgment, and no remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out at a preliminary hearing under Rule 37(1)(a) because the tribunal found it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Rule 37(1)(a) ET Rules
- Hasan v Tesco Stores Ltd
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Balls v Downham Market High School & College
- Jaffrey v Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
- Ahir v British Airways plc
- Cox v Adecco
- Burchell test
- Niedzielska v Faccenda Foods 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.