Case 2602411/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Gregory Truswell v TFS Stores Ltd — 2022

Case reference: 2602411/2022
Decision date: 27 May 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge M Butler Members
Venue: Leicester Heard
Panel members: Ms B Tidd, Ms J Dean

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr Gregory Truswell

Respondent

TFS Stores Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr Gregory Truswell was employed by TFS Stores Limited as a Store Manager from 14 November 2019 until his summary dismissal for gross misconduct on 5 October 2022. The tribunal found that the disciplinary process was flawed from the outset: Ms MacLoughlin arrived unannounced to conduct the investigation, the claimant was not given advance notice of the allegations, and the written witness statements relied on by the respondent were not shown to him before the disciplinary hearing. The tribunal also found that Ms MacLoughlin did not speak to Ms Bekirova, who was central to one of the allegations, and that the respondent did not properly investigate the factual basis for the allegations about time away from the store, the WhatsApp messages, or the claimed failure to follow policies.

Applying section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the principles in Burchell and the range of reasonable responses cases, the tribunal held that the respondent did not carry out a reasonable investigation and did not act reasonably in treating the matters relied on as sufficient grounds for summary dismissal. It also noted that the respondent advanced multiple reasons for dismissal without identifying a principal reason, and that the conduct said to amount to 'fraudulent use of time' was not properly examined in light of the claimant's evidence that he was carrying out work-related activities when away from the store. The unfair dismissal claim therefore succeeded.

The direct age, sex and sexual orientation discrimination claims failed. Applying section 136 of the Equality Act 2010 and Igen v Wong, the tribunal held that the claimant had not established facts from which it could infer discrimination because of age, sex or sexual orientation. The tribunal found that the only clear age-related fact was that the claimant was older than Ms Bekirova, which was insufficient. It also accepted Ms MacLoughlin's denial that she had said the claimant only employed attractive young girls. The breach of contract claim also failed because the tribunal found no contractual entitlement to the designer handbag said to have been promised in connection with the respondent's conference. A remedy hearing was to be listed separately.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Liability only; the tribunal directed that remedy would be determined at a later hearing.	Upheld	—	—
Age discrimination	Direct age discrimination claim based on comments said to refer to the claimant as an older male and Ms Bekirova as a young girl; the tribunal found those facts were not made out.	Dismissed	Age	—
Sex discrimination	Direct sex discrimination claim failed because the tribunal found no facts from which it could infer less favourable treatment because the claimant was male.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Sexual orientation discrimination	Direct sexual orientation discrimination claim failed because the tribunal found no facts from which it could infer treatment because the claimant was heterosexual.	Dismissed	Sexual orientation	—
Breach of contract	Claim concerned an alleged entitlement to receive a designer handbag; the tribunal found no contractual term supporting that entitlement.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.