Case 3200749/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Binnell v Crystal Collections Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3200749/2020
- Decision date
- 6 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hallen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Binnell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr G Binnell was employed by Crystal Collections Limited as a driver from 5 June 2017 until his dismissal on 31 December 2019 for gross misconduct. The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was misconduct. It accepted that he had covertly recorded calls with customers and office staff for about two weeks after his reinstatement in October 2019, that he had done so without permission, and that he had also failed to ask the three identity-check questions required by the respondent’s procedure.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability only. The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim but listed a separate remedy hearing for 23 September 2021, so no monetary award was determined in this judgment. The tribunal indicated that any compensatory award would likely be reduced by 25% for contributory fault if the matter proceeded to remedy. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Sainsburys Supermarket Ltd v Hitt
- London Ambulance NHS Trust v Small
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- Jagex Ltd v McCambridge
- Steen v ASP Packaging Ltd
- Lemonious v Church Commissioners
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.