Case 2602082/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Neil Grice v Grice Collins Long Ltd and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 2602082/2024
- Decision date
- 24 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Chapman REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Neil Grice
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard Mr Neil Grice's case against Grice Collins Long Ltd and Mr Alex Stanhope at Nottingham from 8 to 12 June 2026. His complaints of automatic unfair dismissal and protected disclosure detriment were withdrawn as at 12 June 2026 and were therefore dismissed.
The tribunal found that the unfair dismissal complaint was not well-founded and that Mr Grice was fairly dismissed. His wrongful dismissal complaint was also not well-founded. Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing.
The respondent's breach of contract claim concerning the return of the company car and company laptop was well-founded. Damages were left to be assessed at a remedy hearing if not agreed. The judgment recorded no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The automatic unfair dismissal complaint was withdrawn as at 12 June 2026 and therefore dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The protected disclosure detriment complaint was withdrawn as at 12 June 2026 and therefore dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was fairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | This was the respondent's claim concerning the return of the company car and company laptop. Damages are to be assessed at a remedy hearing if not agreed. | Upheld | — | — |
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.