Case 2602593/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Hibbitt v The Catmose Club acting by its Elected Officials and Committee — 2020
- Case reference
- 2602593/2019
- Decision date
- 20 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Hibbitt
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Hibbitt, was a steward at The Catmose Club and was summarily dismissed on 2 June 2019 with one week's pay. The respondent conceded that the dismissal was unfair, but argued that compensation should be reduced for Polkey and contributory conduct and that the claimant had committed fraud by claiming pay for hours not worked.
The tribunal rejected that allegation. It found that the claimant had been paid for the hours he worked, that the spreadsheet relied on by the new committee was based on assumptions and no contemporaneous records, and that there was nothing to support a finding that he had been paid for more hours than he worked. Applying the Ivey dishonesty test, the tribunal found that he was not fraudulent and therefore not guilty of gross misconduct.
On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal held that the alleged fraud was not made out and that the other performance concerns did not, either individually or together, undermine trust and confidence so as to justify summary dismissal. It also found that the club had affirmed the contract by continuing to employ Mr Hibbitt for about a month while it sourced a replacement steward, which was inconsistent with accepting an alleged repudiatory breach.
On unfair dismissal and remedy-related issues, the tribunal found there had been no real investigation, no disciplinary meeting, no notice of the allegation, no right to be accompanied, no appeal, and no consideration of mitigation or lesser sanction. It rejected a Polkey reduction because there was no basis on which to predict that a fair procedure would still have led to dismissal. It also rejected contributory conduct because the matters raised were not culpable or blameworthy, and because the club had itself approved the arrangement concerning Ms McKay's pay. The tribunal considered the club's size and resources but held that the failure to follow the ACAS Code was unreasonable and awarded a 17.5% uplift. Remedy was left to a later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant had not committed fraud or gross misconduct, and that the respondent had affirmed the contract by keeping him employed while sourcing a replacement steward. Summary dismissal was therefore wrongful. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent conceded unfair dismissal. The tribunal found no reasonable investigation, no fair disciplinary process, no valid basis for a Polkey reduction, no contributory conduct reduction, and a 17.5% ACAS uplift was appropriate. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- Ivey test
- Polkey
- s.207A TULRCA 1992
- contributory conduct test
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.