Case 3201346/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Wicker v XPO Logistics — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201346/2019
- Decision date
- 13 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Wicker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, an HGV tanker driver, was dismissed for gross misconduct after a road traffic accident. The tribunal found conduct was a potentially fair reason for dismissal and accepted that the respondent undertook a reasonable investigation in broad terms, including investigatory meetings, contact with the police, and consideration of the claimant's attendance on a driving course for driving without due care and attention.
The tribunal found the respondent had reasonable grounds for believing the claimant had committed gross misconduct. It accepted that the claimant caused the incident and that the respondent could reasonably regard the matter as blameworthy given the police information, the claimant's attendance on the driving course, and the nature of his role.
The dismissal was nevertheless found unfair because of procedural concerns, particularly that the note of the conversation with PC Davis was not properly put to the claimant during the investigatory process. The tribunal found no breach of the ACAS Code, assessed a 15% chance that the claimant would not have been dismissed had a fairer procedure been followed, and found the claimant 75% to blame for his dismissal. The notice pay claim was dismissed because the tribunal found the conduct amounted to gross misconduct.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The complaint was for notice pay. The tribunal found it was not well founded and dismissed it, having found the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because of concerns about the procedure, particularly the handling of the record of the conversation with PC Davis during the investigatory process. Compensation was reduced for a 15% chance the claimant would not have been dismissed under a fairer procedure and for 75% contributory conduct. | Upheld | — | £1,804 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,804
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,313
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £492
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(1) ERA 1996
- s.123(4) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- Shrestha v Genesis Housing Association Ltd
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Nelson v BBC (No. 2)
- Hollier v Plysu Ltd
- Rao v Civil Aviation Authority
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.